Information Technology, Science and Society.

Knowing, Not Knowing, and How Do We Know What We Know?

Introduction

What do we know? What we learn,observe, remember, understand, and sometimes what we acquire from others and our "common sense" (even though common sense is pretty rare and also sometimes not true.) It was "common sense" that the earth is flat and the earth revolves around the sun because that is what it appears we see.

Sentient and conscious beings

Consciousness

when we think, and observe and are aware. Interesting that they stopped experimenting and asking introspective questions when it was apparent that people's views differ. So what! We're not clones! That we see things differently is what makes us interesting!

Belief

When we understand something without really knowing. But isn't that what we all do, even the famous scientists believe their theories (even when they thought they really knew, history often proving the beliefs quite wrong.

Belief in someone is different than belief in an idea basically because in the long run we do not know anyone else with any certainty; we can not see into another's mind, or soul or heart

Ways of knowing

Of course we only approximate knowledge; we may make more and more accurate guesses but as Paul says we "only see through a glass darkly"

All the experimentation in the world does not prove sure knowledge. Recently, I read a report of the longitudinal scientific study about babies. Conclusion? Babies really smile far younger than any doctor had ever imagined. Any mother could have told the experimenters that before the long study (if any doctor ever bothered to ask!)

In my opinion, many so-called unscientific ways of knowing are far more accurate than a lot of tests. Partly, because the very nature of experiments changes what happens. I'm surprised any doctor got any smiles. Hooray for the resilience of babies.

I don't know whether it's easier to accept things on faith. In my opinion we accept much of science and technology today on faith! And our faith is often misplaced! We are promised all kinds of wonders with technological gizmos of all kinds, many do not deliver. My Christian faith is not an easy option: the belief may seem easy, but the consequences of belief are quite difficult. My faith calls me to care deeply about my fellow human beings and to act on that concern. Not an easy option at all. And as for making death easy...maybe, but only so you can live our lives more subject to scrutiny.

The cluster of sayings about man (mankind?) point out the ambiguity and richness of our reactions to each other and the world. The fact that we care what other people think means we blush. The vagaries of our minds and hearts are delightful, shocking and confusing...and there are always clever people who can see it.

Add another saying: Einstein "Say everything as simply as possible, but no simpler"

Beyond the scientific method: Intuition and Insight

Is there a difference between "inarticulate genius" and "articulate idiocy" ? Yes, but in the nature of the world the articulate idiocy is often the view that prevails because we value convincing words. The "inarticulate genius" often needs to puzzle and strain his or her way to clarity so the genius has some validity.

Bruner's idea that you need intuitive and analysis makes sense. Examination of small details by itself ends in with reality because there is no sense of proportion and balance.. Flights of fancy likewise lose touch with reality when they totally leave the ground.

Too much training can constrain as it can limit a person to only what they know, allowing no room for adjustment, improvisation, learning on the job.

The right amount of self-confidence is vital because it allows us to function competently in our private and public lives. Too much can make us objectionable and prevent us from learning because we think we "know it all". Self-confidence comes from being able to do something; and being recognised for it. Some people are more naturally self-confident; others learn it over time. Families can foster or destroy it. It enables us launch into areas where we haven't ventured before; to try out things and not be destroyed by the failures.

De Bono is right. It is the very nature of creativity that it is not known. Each burst of creativity is unique to the individual and the circumstance. Language obviously limits and locks us because it's use confines us unless we use it to break out (in creating with language)

Patterns

The way we create patterns to make sense of our world enables us to survive and discover new ideas but is often the very way we are limited, because the patterns stop us from seeing another way.

Trigger

I saw my daughter as she was growing up use the "trigger" a lot, as she is hard of hearing. Her intelligence meant she was a good guesser, filling in the gaps very accurately a lot of the time. She would come crashing to a halt when she met entirely new material that had not referents from earlier knowledge. Sometimes her guesses were entirely and magnificently wrong, but because she was usually right caused her much annoyance

Asymmetry

is the basis of much humour because we know the pattern and react to difference and incongruity. Insights to take a short cut are what make discoveries (and make life interesting) Now learning backwards? Not sure how to do that. Sequencing we're good at; and very young children learn knife -edge discrimination that distinguishes that great range of weird animals from Jack Russells to Great Danes are dogs and the other group that are cats.

Preemption.

Why is it so much easier to learn a bad habit than unlearn it? We notice a mismatch with previous patterns very easily. And the context of the happenings make a difference too. We can recognise the nurse in the doctor's office but may fail to do so in the supermarket.

Readiness.

This has much to do with comfort, safety and approval than brain synapses in my opinion.

Circularity.

We come back around to what is comfortable, what fits with earlier patterns

Making Sense:

That's what we do to include new things into our existing world view. That can be good to learn and integrate new ideas. Sometimes it's not so good if we twist new ideas to fit old patterns when they really don't fit!

Attention;

Again a two edged facility. Good when we put our whole mind to a problem to solve it. Not so good when we do that to the exclusion of other ideas that may challenge or call us into question.

Relevance and Meaning

Can be a great discoverer when we make patterns and find congruencies that didn't exist before. Not so great when we do the human thing of finding meaning and relevance when they don't really exist and we'd like them to.

No zero-hold

Enables us to allow new ideas to enter in.

Enemies

Short-term thinking

I think this is very much the domain of government and business. The quickfix which seems to do the job but does not allow consider what the consequences are. An example of this is companies which put people up in a knee-jerk reaction when profits dip forgetting about the the future for short-term gains.

The Ludecy factor

The stockmarket game that some people play so well is again an instance of reducing people to figures

. Scientific research seems a lot like a lot of fields nowadays. Does the ability to apply for grants enable you to be a good scientist? Does the gift which allows you to put in a great tender mean you are good a finding people jobs, building a house or teaching a course? I would say definitely no~.. in fact this ability probably means you have very different skills.

If you can write really brilliant "claims against the selection criteria", can you do anything you claim? or very little but flim flam?

Language is very limiting especially the dichotomous kind man/woman; black/white;

Intelligence vs. Thinking

We do not solve problems of hunger and greed not because we can't because we don't want to. It would mean having less, owning less, giving up rather than taking. Science does not change the human heart.

Yes, I reckon most things in life do kill creativity especially schools. We deliberately train anything out that "rocks the boat" or questions.

One of the problems about "new" ideas is that they are based on old ones. We have no way of thinking out of the boundaries our world must erect around our thinking.

Perception, Description, Metaphysics and Belief

Our view of everything is mediated by what we have experienced and our prejudices are very entrenched even when we know we have them. You can not argue anyone in or out of what they believe they have to discover it themselves.

Metaphysics: study of reality

An inquiry into what exists

Now, this sometimes seems a little silly as we know when a rock hits us how real it is, But dreams sometimes seem so real we recall them as part of our memory

The science of ultimate reality.

Scientists really are only making more educated guesses about "ultimate reality". Each generation thinks it knows the "real" until something "more real" comes along. A matter of degree.

The science of the world as a whole.

Now, the knowledge of everything, it never was possible and now.. I don't think so!

The science of first principles.

The axioms of mathematics (or science) are usually unexamined. The two different ways first principles might be examined mirror the two ways scientists are said to work..from hypothesis to testing with data or from testing data to hypothesis

Belief Systems

It is difficult for me to be "objective" at this point for I have a strong belief in monotheism and like all beliefs it is sensible to me and while I can see the attractions of others I am un-convinced by them. While the untestable nature of belief is true in the scientific "hard" sense I would contend the effect of beleif on lives can be more readily seen than some ideas about science.

Putting Science "Back in its Box"

Of couse there are no answers, maybe only more intellligent questions? The debate in the New Scientist between our two contenders I find amusing and only holds validity if you espouse the idea that God is the "God of the gaps" ie you use God to fill in what you don't know from science. My world view holds something different... that God created all of His creation, not just the bits we don't yet understand.

Can science save its soul? 1 August 1992 Mary Midgley

I agree with Mary Midgley to a large extent in that I do not believe science can answer all the questions of the world. It can search for and obtain limited answers in some areas Nehru's claims about science solving all the problems from hunger, poverty, insanition and literacy are not possible at all just because of "superstiton and deadening custom" ; in short because of people and their mind sets. Wolpert's words too implying that ignorance is the only alternative to scientific thinking is arrogantly narrow.

She (rightly, if that's what Barrow and Tippler say) criticises a viewpoint that the universe is created just so we can observe it.

I agree that science needs to be placed back in "contex - to show it's borders not as sharp, defended frontiers, but as complex interactions with other ways of thinking"

Will science ever fail? Peter Atkins

Peter on the other hand is a bit too ad hominum to me. Why does he bring religion into it? Mary didn't at least not overtly.His argument that science has made many advances is incontravertible but irrelevant to the argument.. However, his stridency about how wonderful science is runs a little thin to me. How much do we really know about the brain, for example? Physically, maybe, but what causes us to think one thing rather than another..no way! and as to feelings, no how! I don't think science has made any way towards "elucidating the response of one live body to another" Remember Lightman, A. (1985) Smile. pp. 142-145?

His view that science gnaws this "cosmic bun" but religion "claims total and thorough digestion" is also erroneous. Paul says it clearest "we see through a glass darkly" First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Bible, 1 Corinthians 13, verse 11)

He rejects religion's sweet words (?) and claims science "is able to demonstate success at every stage". I beg to differ. Science succeeds like everything else slowly and painfully with one step forward and two back- from certainty to doubt to certainty to doubt.

His view about there being no moral differnce between an adminstered poison and one generated by the body would make me steer clear of his company!

His contention that every "why" question can be deconstructed itnto "how" is the old "parts" and "whole" debate. We can never know how the whole body works just by examining each individual part. .That science will one day explain everything is questionable indeed.

Science and the soul 29 Aug 92.Mark Gosport

I agree value judgements are not the domain of science. Science can examine all kinds of "real" things but it can not examine ideas.

Limits of Mysticism Mar 95 Ralph Estling , Peter Rowland

Estling and Rowland rightly point out that science is only one aspect of rationality. Why do people get so wedded to their own view that it allows of the entry of no other?

Estling makes sense when he says science's job to seek truth, but he is far from correct when he says science doesn't proclaim it has found the truth. That is exactly what scientists do all the time! They may nothave done so, but that doesn't stop them from saying so.

At this point, Estling and Rowland lose the plot. Firstly, they align mysticism with fear and terror and say they all proclaim the truth. Is this meant to be logical? Then, they seems to think reason and mysticism are totally at odds, which is an interesting if flawed position.They then ally all kinds of weird things that are the perversion of the human condition (clitoridectomy!!! mysticism it is not) to mysticism.

Then "living in a bleak, hostile inscrutable universe" (poor guys!) Reason for "mutual love and respect" Maybe, maybe not. People being what they are despair and "I couldn't care less!" are just as likely.

I agree that any kind of science can address what science is and how we can use it. The rollcall of eminent people does not prevent me from saying any kind of science mystic or non-mystic can and should examijne these things.

The truth is out there 19 Feb 00 Michael Cross

I agree that science and the technology that uses the science has achieved some things like medicine to treat disease or technical advances to send rockets into space.

Testing ideas

Science is different from magic, but while "bad vibes" are not an excuse for the failure scientific experiments "contaminated samples" have been, and so has some speculative variable constant.

Inductive reasoning has been challenged by Popper, but at least has likelihood on its side. And the tested hypothesis turns into scientific truth ...until something truer arrives! Scientists should behave gracefully and acknowledge a failure if it occurs, but despite all the much vaunted "scientific method" scientists are human, and pprone as ordianry mortals to protecting their backs.

Scientists, as Cross points out, rejected the hole in the ozone layer because it was unexpected.

Ways of Seeing

Paradigm shifts that Kuhn suggests make sense to me. Creativity comes out of re-creating the known, not usually from re-shuffling the old. Sometimes the paradigm is so true (dna) that everyone can see it. Obviously if you know something about a subject you can more likely have the arsenal to re-thnk, but too much investment in the old ways block new thoughts.

Science, like every human activity is a social construct, but that does not mean some of what it deals with is "true". Also it is true there is not only one way to discover the world. The ancient Egyptians, Mayans, druids all had quite sophisticated knowledge of astronomy. It differs from that studied today, but still these ancient astronomers had some quite accurate knowledge of the stars.

I agree with the strictures against relativism and post modern thinking. There are universal truths. The main difficulty is finding them out. so many "universal truths" are only half truths, on the way there but not there yet. The sociobiology argument would be fine if genetics and biology are all that made up humans, but they aren't . I don't think we're likely to define consciousness to the extent scientists can take over for quite a while yet!

Scientific endeavours do have a "family resemblance" in that they try to examine the physical realities of our world. And good scince is what we would all like it to be.. And a kind of truth can be worked towards as long as scientists realize they are not the only answer.

"The Best of all Possible Brains"

Review by Hilary Putnam of Shadows of the mInd by Roger Penrose

I object to Hilary Putnam's rejection of Roger Penrose's argument. Putnam says Penrose is highly respected but cites all the experts who have thought the argument fallacious. I would say, so what! I don't understand the mathematics, but logically if a respected mathematician says it's worth considering why can we not look at it again?

Can Quantum Mechanics Explain Consciousness?

Review by Christopher Lehmann-Haupt of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose

I agree with what Lehmann-Haupt explains Penrose says; that the human brain is more than computation. This review says Penrose is very clear, easy to understand and illuminationg.

The Mechanics of the Soul

Review by Marcia Bartusiak of How Brains Think by William Calvin

Evidently Calvin rejects Penrose's right to even consider consciousness from a physics point of view, although from what I've gleaned Penrose was saying we can't. Calvin too seems to have written an entertainng and clear book about his field, this time considering Darwinian inluences on intelligence. I'm inclined to think, with onl the review for evodence that Calvin is as far from understanding consciousness and Penrose. Reducing any consciousness to either synapse or heredity is missing the point.

Updated

March 7, 2006

Rosemary Horton

M.Sc; B.A. (Hons) Grad Dip Ed; Grad Dip Lib; Grad Dip Women's Studs

Visitors