Independent Mind

That's due to the nature of the specific problems.

When reading about the natural sciences you get pretty much the same all over; facts. There are not several ways to interpret "0 degrees calvin" for instance. Success in this field is to accept the facts.

For other problems there are many plausible answers, and in reading various works we can often experience contradictions. That is the wake-up call as I see it. That's when we start making up our own minds.

I suspect that most of us are willing to agree that, broadly speaking, we have ?'fact knowledge' and ?'relationship knowledge'. I would like to take this a step further by saying that I wish to claim that fact knowledge is mono-logical and relationship knowledge is multi-logical.

Mono-logical matters have one set of principles guiding their solution; this set of principles is often (if not always) the ?'scientific method'. Often these mono-logical matters have a paradigm--The natural sciences?-normal sciences?-as Thomas Kuhn labels it in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" move forward in a "successive transition from one paradigm to another". A paradigm defines the theory, rules and standards of practice. "In the absence of a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that could possible pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant."

Multi-logical problems are different in kind from mono-logical matters.

Socratic dialogue is one technique for attempting to grapple with multi-logical problems; problems that are either not pattern like or that the pattern is too complex to ascertain. Most problems that we face in our daily life are such multi-logical in nature. Simple problems that occur daily in family life are examples. Each member of the family has a different point of view with differing needs and desires. Most of the problems we constantly face are not readily solved by mathematics because they are not pattern specific and are multi-logical.

Dialogue is a technique for mutual consideration of such problems wherein solutions grow in a dialectical manner. Through dialogue each individual brings his/her point of view to the fore by proposing solutions constructed around their specific view. All participants in the dialogue come at the solution from the logic of their views. The solution builds dialectically i.e. a thesis is developed and from this thesis and a contrasting antithesis is constructed a synthesis that takes into consideration both proposals. From this a new synthesis a new thesis is developed.

When we are dealing with mono-logical problems well circumscribed by algorithms the personal biases of the subject are of small concern. In multi-logical problems, without the advantage of paradigms and algorithms, the biases of the problem solvers become a serious source of error. One important task of dialogue is to illuminate these prejudices which may be quite subtle and often out of consciousness of the participant holding them.

Our society is very good while dealing with mono-logical problems. Our society is terrible while dealing with multi-logical problems.

Do you not think that we desperately need to understand CT, which attempts to help us understand how to think about multi-logical problems? Do you not think that it is worth while for every adult to get up off their ?'intellectual couch' and teach themselves CT?

In short this is how I understand the following terms:

Mono-logical issue; an issue on wich consensus can be reached only through the application of one specific path of logic. The biases of the participants are not important because the logic itself is biased.

Multi-logical issue; an issue not confined by logic because the participants are in disagreement on wich logical trail is the most beneficial in "cataloging" the issue.

The way I see it, a multi-logical issue is an issue on wich there is little or no certain knowledge, or as you put it: "not pattern like or that the pattern is too complex to ascertain". There is no grounds upon wich to form the axioms that are required in making an issue mono-logical.
This lack of knowledge or understanding causes the self to alter in it's perception of it. In dealing with facts we apply intellectual reason, but as soon as there's a shortage of certainties reason becomes emotionally based. One function of emotion is to bridge areas of understanding that are unclear or misunderstood.

So it is my belief that the key to navigate these multi-logical issues is control of one's emotions, not only one's intellect.

cyracuz

That sounds pretty good to me.

Building the atom bomb dealt with single logic (principle) concerns.

Dropping the bomb dealt with multiple logic (principle) concerns.

So you agree that reason can be emotionally based?

Yes, Cyracuz, insofar as ALL conscious thinking is MOVTIVATED it's basis is emotional, i.e., some kind of desire. Otherwise we just have images floating through our mental view sans destination (except insofar as we also have unconscious motivations/goals)

Cryacuz I agree with JL.

Yes.

But I am not talking about the motivation of thought, but the process itself.

In addition to acting as the boost to apply intellect, emotion also serves as a backdrop to reason, a sort of support where the trail of reason becomes elusive.

But, of course, motivation drives the "process" throughout its career. When motivation stops, the process halts, having lost its motivational feul.

The paths of learning aren't always paved. We may be motivated but unsure of how to understand. When reason fails to give a suficcient answer we are still able to continue based on hazy considerations and vague assumptions until they can be relieved by something of more substance. It is my statement that this ability to "climb the thin reeds" is emotionally based.

But maybe we're just saying the same thing...

As I see it, there is only motivation (drive, will) with noone who is motivated or driven.

For once I agree with you coberst.

A personal theory based on my own experience: There aren't that many science geniuses teaching high school, there aren't even very many gifted teachers teaching in high school. The combination of both is even more rare.

When I was at Uni, I was studying science as a science student....while the people who were destined to teach high school science were studying "education" instead....and they seemed to be two very different kinds of people.

I've always tried to be a "good teacher" throughout my career. But I've come to the conclusion that education results less from good teaching than from good learning. We go to school (especially universities) to learn (with the help of teachers), not to-be-taught.

I'm sure you are an outstanding teacher JL. I've learned much from you myself, and it's good to have another opportunity to thank you for that.

I agree. Understanding, the pinnacle of comprehension, requires curiosity and caring, without those two important matters no one will understand anything.

Maybe. But this motivation is not an invisible push. It manifests as something, and it is my belief that this something is actual thought.
I believe that when someone is unable to acknowledge obvious glitches in their understanding (something we often see with religious people defending their creed), it is not because they cannot control their intellectual reason, but because they cannot control their emotional reason.

We have irrational forces constantly pushing us out of being reasonable. These egocentric and sociocentric forces must be comprehended and fought constantly if we are to remain rational.

I disagree. To remain 'rational' is to have both emotion and intellect in harmony with eachother.

I was recently watching, for the third time, the movie "Full Metal Jacket". For those who have been privileged to serve in the military this movie will bring back ^#%*@ memories. For those who have not had this privilege this movie will be instructive as to certain means to instill the proper attitude into the citizen turned soldier.

The military recruit spends eight weeks in basic training upon first entering service. This eight week period includes an introduction to certain skills and knowledge required by all military people. Primarily, however, these eight weeks are designed to change dramatically the attitude of the recruit.

One aspect of this attitude change focuses upon changing the natural egocentric attitude into a sociocentric attitude. We do not generally recognize that we are motivated by the impulse to "view everything within the world in relationship to oneself, to be self-centered". We are innately egocentric.

The people who study such matters seem to conclude that the normal human reaction is generally irrationally egocentric. The military, I think, wishes to change that irrational egocentric behavior into an irrational sociocentric behavior with the military as the social group which replaces the individual ego.

It appears that the key question of an egocentric is "How can I get what I want and avoid having to change in any fundamental way?"