Paradigms and normal science

[aerius]

Question, am I the only here who's having flashbacks to The Twinkie Messiah?

[Surlethe]

Question, am I the only here who's having flashbacks to The Twinkie Messiah?

No. This one, however, seems a little more conducive to discussion and a little less schizophrenic.

[Surlethe]

That makes sense to me.

When a scholar is in academia s/he is generally surrounded by individuals who share the same pool of common knowledge. Such is generally not the case for the self-actualizing self-learner. This self-learning is a lonely task because one can seldom find anyone within his or her circle who shares the same pool of knowledge that the lone self-learner is interested in at any particular time. There is seldom a good backboard available for critique.

Could you drop the "self-actualizing self-learner" completely, and say what you mean? Or at least give the terms useful definitions.

When such a backboard is available the self-learner is wise to embrace the opportunity to reason together with a brother/sister in scholarship. I use the word ‘scholar’ somewhat loosely. I think we need to take that word off the pedestal where common usage has placed it and apply it to anyone who pursues disinterested knowledge just for the pleasure of understanding.

Anyone anytime is wise to embrace the opportunity to reason. What do you mean by "scholar"? Give it a real definition, if you're not going to use the same language as the rest of us.

[General Zod]

Question, am I the only here who's having flashbacks to The Twinkie Messiah?

I was having flashbacks to Stuart at SDI personally. Except with less flair for the dramatic.

[coberst]

That makes sense to me.

When a scholar is in academia s/he is generally surrounded by individuals who share the same pool of common knowledge. Such is generally not the case for the self-actualizing self-learner. This self-learning is a lonely task because one can seldom find anyone within his or her circle who shares the same pool of knowledge that the lone self-learner is interested in at any particular time. There is seldom a good backboard available for critique.

Could you drop the "self-actualizing self-learner" completely, and say what you mean? Or at least give the terms useful definitions.

When such a backboard is available the self-learner is wise to embrace the opportunity to reason together with a brother/sister in scholarship. I use the word ‘scholar’ somewhat loosely. I think we need to take that word off the pedestal where common usage has placed it and apply it to anyone who pursues disinterested knowledge just for the pleasure of understanding.

Anyone anytime is wise to embrace the opportunity to reason. What do you mean by "scholar"? Give it a real definition, if you're not going to use the same language as the rest of us.

I have done this before. Read the other posts.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Everyone here has been exceptionally patient with you thus far, considering your manner of expressing yourself. If you have any intent of "enlightening us", please do us the favor of defining your terms in your own words, as simply as possible, and in clear response to specific questions. Just what do you mean by scholar?

[brianeyci]

The message is ‘get a life—get an intellectual life’.

Unfortunately, you do not seem connected to reality. I already mentioned skyrocketing numbers of humanities students, and too many students being forced to go to university because they believe it's the only way to get a job. University education is being diluted by people like you. The simple fact is people cannot afford to go to university education, and should not be encouraged to do so unless they can come out in a field that pays back their loans (or they have well-off parents.) Psychology, history, English, do not pay at the undergraduate level.

A mass movement to encourage students to take humanities majors will simply cause heartache and grief. Those who are already talented and interested in human sciences will seek them out. Why encourage people who have no talent and no interest, or more to the point, why do we need more humanities majors? Your approach tricks teenagers into thinking that humanities is the route to a good life since you claim it is necessary. The reality is a high default rate, unnecessary skills and wasting four years learning something they could do on their own time.

When making judgments all bias inhibits rational and therefore better judgments.

You still haven't answered the question why someone who does the best he can to contribute to society is anti-intellectual simply because he doesn't study human sciences.

Some great mind once said “know thyself” and another said “the unexamined life is not worth living”. Reading about such matters as history, psychology, anthropology, etc. helps one to know them self and to examine life. Also such things can be very interesting.

Again you ignore the fact that it's not interesting to all people. Again you ignore that studying the human sciences will not make a person more or less interested in self-actualizing or self-learning. What will make people interested in helping their fellow man is adopting a system of ethics like humanism.

You are correct in one thing here; essay writing is not a necessary condition for intellect. It is, however, very useful for learning.

Wrong. Essay writing at the university level is not essay writing at the high school level, or even report writing. Listing evidence and adhering to the scientific method is -not- enough. Essay writing at the university level resembles very little any kind of writing you will ever do anywhere. An A level essay requires creativity and theory. This creativity, like most other requirements in higher learning, is part effort but mostly intrinsic. There are people who suck at essay writing and always will. There are many different kinds of learning, and you dismiss others as inferior for no reason.

And I don't see why you want to put disinterested learning on some kind of high pedestal. One, very few can afford disinterested learning, spending time and money for something that yields no practical results.

Two, disinterested learning is learning simply for the ego, and some people do not like learning: the only way they can learn is if they see some reward to learning at the end of the headache. For example, a diploma or a career. If they do not need that diploma or want that career, disinterested learning is pointless.

Three, disinterested learning sounds like the worst kind of learning, self-learners who believe they know a lot simply by reading many textbooks instead of being tested. In science this leads to people who read wordy science books and are full of themselves with no math. In humanities this leads to people who are trivia buffs, who memorize every date and every battle but don't see the connections tested for at a university level (in short an incomplete curriculum.)

Disinterested learning requires you be a certain kind of person. Have you ever considered your "quest" is futile, as futile as the Borg trying to kill the Galactic Empire or B&B reviving Star Trek? Have you ever considered you are wasting your time, trying to change that which is impossible and if it were, better not changed?

[coberst]

Everyone here has been exceptionally patient with you thus far, considering your manner of expressing yourself. If you have any intent of "enlightening us", please do us the favor of defining your terms in your own words, as simply as possible, and in clear response to specific questions. Just what do you mean by scholar?

I use the word ‘scholar’ somewhat loosely. I think we need to take that word off the pedestal where common usage has placed it and apply it to anyone who pursues disinterested knowledge just for the pleasure of understanding.

[General Zod]

Everyone here has been exceptionally patient with you thus far, considering your manner of expressing yourself. If you have any intent of "enlightening us", please do us the favor of defining your terms in your own words, as simply as possible, and in clear response to specific questions. Just what do you mean by scholar?

I use the word ‘scholar’ somewhat loosely. I think we need to take that word off the pedestal where common usage has placed it and apply it to anyone who pursues disinterested knowledge just for the pleasure of understanding.

Congratulations, you've just described a hobbyist you dolt.

[brianeyci]

I use the word ‘scholar’ somewhat loosely. I think we need to take that word off the pedestal where common usage has placed it and apply it to anyone who pursues disinterested knowledge just for the pleasure of understanding.

Why? Because calling only people who have university degrees and publish papers in their respective fields scholars is elitist?

I see no benefit to calling everybody who pursues topics on their free time scholars. I do however see much harm: people who believe they know more than a specialist who has spent many years studying a topic matter. People who think they know more than a person who dedicates his whole life to a topic matter. For example, religious fundamentalists who think they know more about evolution than scientists because they believe themselves scholars.

Do you not like elitism, and why the hell not?

[coberst]

The message is ‘get a life—get an intellectual life’.

You still haven't answered the question why someone who does the best he can to contribute to society is anti-intellectual simply because he doesn't study human sciences.


And I don't see why you want to put disinterested learning on some kind of high pedestal. One, very few can afford disinterested learning, spending time and money for something that yields no practical results.

Two, disinterested learning is learning simply for the ego, and some people do not like learning: the only way they can learn is if they see some reward to learning at the end of the headache. For example, a diploma or a career. If they do not need that diploma or want that career, disinterested learning is pointless.

Three, disinterested learning sounds like the worst kind of learning, self-learners who believe they know a lot simply by reading many textbooks instead of being tested. In science this leads to people who read wordy science books and are full of themselves with no math. In humanities this leads to people who are trivia buffs, who memorize every date and every battle but don't see the connections tested for at a university level (in short an incomplete curriculum.)

You seem to be building a straw man about te anti-intellectual statement.

Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term 'disinterested knowledge' as similar to 'pure research', as compared to 'applied research'. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

In our consumer society, disinterested knowledge is seldom a matter upon which institutional education will waste time. Disinterested knowledge is the province of the self-learner. I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery.

[brianeyci]

Do you realize that not everybody is like you, and in fact on a fundamental level many people dislike learning and no amount of study of human sciences will change this? Not everybody's adrenaline level rises the more then learn. The people who like learning for the sake of learning are a rare breed, as any teacher will tell you.

What most people learn for is for a goal, for a diploma or a career. And there is nothing wrong with interested learning. In fact, I advance the idea that interested learning is the best kind of learning. Interested learning means the people with the most interest will enter the fields they love, and produce better results due to hard work.

Research requires a large degree of freedom from the everyday task of survival. Very few people can afford to do this. And even if they could, what makes you think there isn't enough research into the human sciences already? Again I ask the question: why the human sciences?

You claim that many of society's problems can be negated by more humanities students. I would like to see some kind of evidence for this claim. In particular, whether engineers, scientists or the people responsible for society's greatest challenges lack the ethical training to make proper decisions regarding mankind's future. Good luck with that one, because last I heard engineers belong to ethical professional organizations and scientists have peer review to weed out their mistakes.

[Coyote]

Sorry, coberst, but I have news for you. A guy who posts on a web-board about his 'enlightenment' since High School is not a hero. He may be a potially interesting participant or conversant, but he is not a "hero", a word tossed about waaaayy too much these days.
These are heroes:

...Awarded in the name of Congress the Medal of Honor to Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith, United States Army

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003. On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force.

Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 fellow soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round.

Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force.

During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers. Sergeant First Class Smith’s extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division “Rock of the Marne,” and the United States Army.

Here is another hero:

Captain Vasily Grigoryevich Zaytsev (Russian: Васи́лий Григо́рьевич За́йцев IPA: [vʌˈsʲilʲɪj grʲɪˈgorʲjevʲɪtɕ ˈzajtsɨf] ) (March 23, 1915–December 15, 1991) was a Soviet sniper during World War II who between November 10 and December 17, 1942 during the Battle of Stalingrad killed 225 soldiers and officers of the Wehrmacht and other Axis armies, including 11 enemy snipers. Prior to 10 November he had already killed 32 Axis soldiers with the standard-issue Mosin-Nagant rifle ("tryokhlineyka", three line rifle). Between October 1942 and January 1943, Zaytsev had made 242 verified kills, but the real number may be much higher, some argue it might have been as many as 400. His military rank at the time was Junior Lieutenant.

Here's a hero, too:

Liviu Librescu (August 18, 1930 – April 16, 2007; Hebrew: ליביו ליברסקו) was a Romanian born and educated Israeli-American scientist and academic whose major research fields were aeroelasticity and aerodynamics. His most recent position was Professor of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech. The 76-year-old Holocaust survivor was shot and killed in the Virginia Tech massacre while holding off the gunman at the entrance to his classroom so his students could escape through the windows.

Intellectual masturbation is not 'heroism'.

[coberst]

Do you realize that not everybody is like you, and in fact on a fundamental level many people dislike learning and no amount of study of human sciences will change this? Not everybody's adrenaline level rises the more then learn. The people who like learning for the sake of learning are a rare breed, as any teacher will tell you.

What most people learn for is for a goal, for a diploma or a career. And there is nothing wrong with interested learning. In fact, I advance the idea that interested learning is the best kind of learning. Interested learning means the people with the most interest will enter the fields they love, and produce better results due to hard work.

Research requires a large degree of freedom from the everyday task of survival. Very few people can afford to do this. And even if they could, what makes you think there isn't enough research into the human sciences already? Again I ask the question: why the human sciences?

You claim that many of society's problems can be negated by more humanities students. I would like to see some kind of evidence for this claim. In particular, whether engineers, scientists or the people responsible for society's greatest challenges lack the ethical training to make proper decisions regarding mankind's future. Good luck with that one, because last I heard engineers belong to ethical professional organizations and scientists have peer review to weed out their mistakes.

Unfortunatly you are correct. Our educational institutions have failed us and that is part of the reason that we are in such a pickle. Our only way out is for adults to put their learning hats and and accept the responsibility for this mess. Our problem can be solved if our adult population will get off the couch and into the library.

[coberst]

Coyote

They are truly heroes, no doubt.

[CaptHawkeye]

Our only way out is for adults to put their learning hats and and accept the responsibility for this mess. Our problem can be solved if our adult population will get off the couch and into the library.

brian clearly stated this can't work in his fucking post.

Do you realize that not everybody is like you, and in fact on a fundamental level many people dislike learning and no amount of study of human sciences will change this?

You're living in false dreamworld if you honestly think you can do anything to change human nature.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

The only way to change human nature probably lies in the hands of the genetic engineers and behaviorists of the future. Although I think humanities are important in their own right, the sciences seem to produce the most lasting, concrete benefits.

Perhaps one day they will be able to engineer "better" people who aren't lazy and who do want to learn just to learn and better themselves, but I don't think average joe is going to do that through natural selection. Animals, I am told, are naturally lazy creatures who only do as much as they need to. There is a biological impetus behind wanting to sit around and do nothing if you can.

[brianeyci]

Our educational institutions are failing us precisely because of people with your kind of thinking coberst, who want to shove as many people as possible into a higher learning environment without realizing that most people are not suited to sitting at a desk for hours on end reading about theoretical concepts or writing essays.

The result is bullshit degrees to meet demand, and the dilution of real higher education.

Going to the library reading dry books about psychology is not the solution. The solution is probably grassroots movements embracing ethics, which even the most inept at study can grasp. Some kind of popular appeal to humanism, human rights. If you want to change human society, try going to political rallies and advancing humanism. But good luck : most people have enough problems just surviving.

[Darth Wong]

Unfortunatly you are correct. Our educational institutions have failed us and that is part of the reason that we are in such a pickle. Our only way out is for adults to put their learning hats and and accept the responsibility for this mess. Our problem can be solved if our adult population will get off the couch and into the library.

Bullshit. Even if people spend half their time in the library, they will tend to read only that which they find interesting. Science is a good example of an area where millions of people read superficial coffee-table treatments of the subject but wouldn't touch the real thing with a ten foot pole. As soon as the equations come out, the audience disappears.

In a real school, they don't stop after teaching you the useless superficial stuff (you know, the kind of stuff you have been posting, and which people spout off in order to make themselves sound intellectual at cocktail parties). They continue into the hard, gritty, annoying stuff: the stuff that people don't want to learn on their own because it's difficult and exhausting. It's the real work behind the superficial version you see in books that make the best-seller list.

At the end of the day, "self-actualizing self-learner" is just another term for "dilletante", and that's what you are. Real continuing-education has a real-world purpose, apart from "self-actualization".

[CaptainChewbacca]

Question; Is self-actualizing self-learning at all like self-loving? Because I do that to an extent I feel to be heroic.

[Eris]

Question; Is self-actualizing self-learning at all like self-loving? Because I do that to an extent I feel to be heroic.

If it is, then I'm getting a cape and running around saving people, because damn if I don't qualify as a superhero under that definition. Think of all the great innuendo I could get as Fanservice Girl - it'd be fun!

And while I've now completely lost track of coberst's ramblings, I am surprised no one's called him on his MA in Philosophy claim. I mean really, if he actually did have an MA in Philosophy there's no chance he'd be this easy to catch in his bullshit. If he were analytically trained he'd be able to string together a coherent argument, and if he were Continental then at least his ramblings would be so stunningly arcane that no one could read through it and find anything to pick out anything to attack. (The argumentum ad obscura, or proof by confusion.)

[General Zod]

Question; Is self-actualizing self-learning at all like self-loving? Because I do that to an extent I feel to be heroic.

If it is, then I'm getting a cape and running around saving people, because damn if I don't qualify as a superhero under that definition. Think of all the great innuendo I could get as Fanservice Girl - it'd be fun!

And while I've now completely lost track of coberst's ramblings, I am surprised no one's called him on his MA in Philosophy claim. I mean really, if he actually did have an MA in Philosophy there's no chance he'd be this easy to catch in his bullshit. If he were analytically trained he'd be able to string together a coherent argument, and if he were Continental then at least his ramblings would be so stunningly arcane that no one could read through it and find anything to pick out anything to attack. (The argumentum ad obscura, or proof by confusion.)

It's not as if philosophy degrees are taken very seriously in the first place.

[Eris]

It's not as if philosophy degrees are taken very seriously in the first place.

Not here, clearly. But since I'm feeling tetchy (I'm finishing up my BA/BS is philosophy and nursing) I'll point out that it's a view not universally held.

For instance, philosophy graduates applying to medical school in 1998 (according to the Medical School Admissions Requirments book for that year) had an acceptance rate of 50.2% - biology majors by contrast had an acceptance rate of 39.9% in the same year. Philosophy majors consistently have the best or close to the best acceptance rates, in law school as well as medical school. Philosophers also tend to do better on the GRE than people from other fields. For post-grad education at least, philosophy is an entirely respectable degree to have gained, and in fact apparently significatly improves your chances of success, providing you have all the other requirements taken care of.

Analytic philosophy is the rigourous study of arguments and logic. I'll agree that it doesn't have the direct application of something like engineering or medical training, but it does teach you how to think clearly and well. I would think that the state of the public forum at present, in the US in particular but everywhere more generally, should make it apparent what happens when we have a dearth of people capable of intelligent thought.

It vaguely vexes me, actually, the little respect philosophy seems to get amongst some segments of the population. No it hasn't done the quantifiable good of engineering and medicine, and yes I'm quite aware that it's about as abstract as you can get. But it also provides a useful and demonstrable benefit to those who study it, whether as a career or not. Very little teaches you to spot bullshit as well as analtyic philosophy, and good reasoning and logic skills are valuable no matter what you happen to be doing. It's no medicine, but that just means we should (and do) devote fewer resources to it, and further just because it's not medicine doesn't mean it's useless. Some sense of scale, please.

Grr.

[General Zod]

It vaguely vexes me, actually, the little respect philosophy seems to get amongst some segments of the population. No it hasn't done the quantifiable good of engineering and medicine, and yes I'm quite aware that it's about as abstract as you can get. But it also provides a useful and demonstrable benefit to those who study it, whether as a career or not. Very little teaches you to spot bullshit as well as analtyic philosophy, and good reasoning and logic skills are valuable no matter what you happen to be doing. It's no medicine, but that just means we should (and do) devote fewer resources to it, and further just because it's not medicine doesn't mean it's useless. Some sense of scale, please.

Grr.

I suppose it can be useful to some extent, but I don't see how it would help someone recognize, say, someone else bullshitting about a nonexistent medical treatment or one that doesn't work as advertised unless they possess any skills or knowledge in the medical field already.

[Eris]

I suppose it can be useful to some extent, but I don't see how it would help someone recognize, say, someone else bullshitting about a nonexistent medical treatment or one that doesn't work as advertised unless they possess any skills or knowledge in the medical field already.

Well that's why we don't let philosophers actually do anything, just let them think about it.

I'm actually somewhat serious, too. Philosophy even in philosophy requires background knowledge, which is why you see many philosphers doing other things as well. To name someone I'm familiar with the philosopher of science Richard Healey also happens to be a practicing physicist. Likewise, the best philosophers of mathematics were also mathematicians to one degree or another, and so on.

Philosophy isn't the answer, but it certainly I think can help us reach the answer faster. Take the medical expert in your example. Sure a philosopher might not be able to spot the bullshitting, but even a medical expert could miss it as well if they didn't know how to think critically in a lgoical fashion - you can know plenty of medical facts and still fall prey to an anecdotal fallacy, for instance.

Medicine's actually a good example since the training tends to be weak on critical thinking in many cases, and is consequently often fairly slow to adopt change even in the face of evidence. An injection of logic and rational debate would do the profession some good, I think. Get rid of some of the prayer and extreme traditionalism.