Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness and blind spots Was: Self-awareness
independent", in that their beginnings have no precedent causes that the later developed system could have had any information about. Too bad about the several hundred trillion we blew this week. but maybe it'll turn out to be well worth it.It's a little like getting our first peek over the edge of the teacup we thought was the whole universe, full of strange delights. I think that category of uncontrolled individual 'happenings' of conserved change is a big category, and my methods for investigating them is probably of general use and needing work. There might well be other ways to explore them and other kinds of phenomena that can be turned into windows into nature and either fun or useful ways to explore them. Any ideas for what part of the spectrum you'd find interesting to poke into? Phil From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 3:54 PM To: Aku; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] Self-awareness and blind spots Was: Self-awareness Phil - Spot on Phil. I'm CC:ing a friend (Aku) with whom I often discuss this point (thus I'm leaving the cruft at the bottom). Science's biggest failing (perhaps) is it's (natural) blind spots. When I came to LANL in 1981, the Center for Non-Linear Studies was pretty new and for the most part there was little, if any, study of non-linear systems going on in the world. This was mainly because of a lack of tools to work with nonlinear systems. Once (most) scientists got over their fear of computation, many more complex systems could be studied than before. Like the man looking for his lost keys under the streetlamp even though he dropped them a block away "because the light is better here". "... because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." - Rummy Rummy is the new Rumi? The emerging work in Science studying itself (primarily through studying Citation Networks) offers some hope that we can begin to fill in some of the blind spots. Our own Marko Rodriguez & friends, for example: http://www2007.org/poster860.php That is not to say (as you seem to here) that we haven't just filled out a huge amount of unexplored territory only to create a similarly huge number of unconsidered regions within that territory. I'm not completely up on your view on this topic but there also seems to be a theme regarding "far from equilibrium systems"? Is that what you mean by "uncontrolled systems"? carry on! - Steve Steve, Well, might you also say science is self-organized to be 'robustly' avoiding the subject of uncontrolled systems too?? If something doesn't come to your attention because you're only looking for something else, it could seem to not exist. How do you explain the very large variety of complex systems that take care of themselves somehow, sharing environments with very low specific variety corresponding to their evident highly complex internal designs and internally coordinated behaviors? Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:48 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness Well said Russ. Science as a self-organizing system which is relatively robust and self-healing. Russ Abbott wrote: Richard Feynman said that "Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is." To the extent that it achieves that goal, science works even without individual self-awareness. That's really quite an accomplishment, to have created a way of being in the world that succeeds reasonably well without having to depend on individual subjective honesty. For the most part, if we aren't honest with ourselves and with each other, we all suffer negative consequences. Now that I've written that, it seems to me that "honesty with oneself" is not a bad definition of "self-awareness." Another way of putting it is that self-awareness is what keeps us from fooling ourselves about our subjective experience. Contrast this with Feynman's definition. Science works reasonably well even without individual self-awareness in that it relies on community self-verification. In some ways science is the self-awareness of a community of people about what can be known about the world. Obviously science is not about everything -- in particular inter-personal values. But within its domain I think it does a pretty good job of keeping everyon
Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness
Steve, Well, might you also say science is self-organized to be 'robustly' avoiding the subject of uncontrolled systems too?? If something doesn't come to your attention because you're only looking for something else, it could seem to not exist. How do you explain the very large variety of complex systems that take care of themselves somehow, sharing environments with very low specific variety corresponding to their evident highly complex internal designs and internally coordinated behaviors? Phil > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Steve Smith > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:48 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness > > Well said Russ. Science as a self-organizing system which is > relatively > robust and self-healing. > > Russ Abbott wrote: > > Richard Feynman said that "Science is what we have learned about how > > not to fool ourselves about the way the world is." To the extent that > > it achieves that goal, science works even without individual > > self-awareness. That's really quite an accomplishment, to have > created > > a way of being in the world that succeeds reasonably well without > > having to depend on individual subjective honesty. > > > > For the most part, if we aren't honest with ourselves and with each > > other, we all suffer negative consequences. Now that I've written > > that, it seems to me that "honesty with oneself" is not a bad > > definition of "self-awareness." Another way of putting it is that > > self-awareness is what keeps us from fooling ourselves about our > > subjective experience. Contrast this with Feynman's definition. > > > > Science works reasonably well even without individual self-awareness > > in that it relies on community self-verification. In some ways > science > > is the self-awareness of a community of people about what can be > known > > about the world. Obviously science is not about everything -- in > > particular inter-personal values. But within its domain I think it > > does a pretty good job of keeping everyone involved reasonably honest > > -- and especially keeping the community as a whole reasonably honest. > > There are failures and detours. But they are usually corrected. > > > > I hadn't intended my original post to be about science. It was about > > the importance of self-awareness when dealing with political and > > governance issues. But now that we are talking about science it's an > > interesting comparison. Perhaps that's why science has been so > > successful. It's a methodology that isn't ultimately dependent on > > individual human honesty. Can we say that about anything else? > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness
Well said Russ. Science as a self-organizing system which is relatively robust and self-healing. Russ Abbott wrote: Richard Feynman said that "Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is." To the extent that it achieves that goal, science works even without individual self-awareness. That's really quite an accomplishment, to have created a way of being in the world that succeeds reasonably well without having to depend on individual subjective honesty. For the most part, if we aren't honest with ourselves and with each other, we all suffer negative consequences. Now that I've written that, it seems to me that "honesty with oneself" is not a bad definition of "self-awareness." Another way of putting it is that self-awareness is what keeps us from fooling ourselves about our subjective experience. Contrast this with Feynman's definition. Science works reasonably well even without individual self-awareness in that it relies on community self-verification. In some ways science is the self-awareness of a community of people about what can be known about the world. Obviously science is not about everything -- in particular inter-personal values. But within its domain I think it does a pretty good job of keeping everyone involved reasonably honest -- and especially keeping the community as a whole reasonably honest. There are failures and detours. But they are usually corrected. I hadn't intended my original post to be about science. It was about the importance of self-awareness when dealing with political and governance issues. But now that we are talking about science it's an interesting comparison. Perhaps that's why science has been so successful. It's a methodology that isn't ultimately dependent on individual human honesty. Can we say that about anything else? FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness
so, but for the most part I think of scientists as intellectually honest, as doing as good a job as they know how to do, and as willing to change their minds in the face of contrary evidence. -- Russ On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Phil Henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Russ, Oh, just that scientists appear to be one of the main violators of your self-awareness principle. Scientists tend to describe the physical world as if they are unaware that science constructs descriptive models of things far too complex to model, that might behave differently from any kind of model we know how to invent. That has us spending a disproportionate amount of time looking into our theories for the behavior of the world around us (under the streetlight for the keys lost in the alley) and letting our skills in watching physical systems atrophy. Do you see the connection?Is it partly accurate? Phil Henshaw From: Russ Abbott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 4:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness I'm sorry, Phil, I'm missing your point. How does your comment relate to my argument that self-awareness is a primary good and a possible way around the difficulty most people have with critical thinking? -- Russ On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Phil Henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well Russ, what if a group of scientists were to acknowledge that science actually just seems to be descriptive after all..., and looking through the holes one seems able to actually see signs of a physical world after all! Than sort of 'emperor's new clothes' moment might be enough to turn everyone's attention to value of self-critical thinking wouldn't it?!;-) Phil From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 10:06 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So the first step is for each individual to accept their responsibility to think/speak critically at every opportunity. The next step is to package such critical thinking inside an infectious wrapper so that it spreads across all humanity. Yes, if it worked it would be wonderful. I'm cynical enough to doubt that it would succeed. (1) I doubt that we can find a wrapper infectious enough and (2) even if we did, I doubt that the population as a whole is capable of the level of critical thinking that we need. (That's elitism, isn't it.) Demagoguery almost always seems to succeed. Can anything be done about that? More discouraging is that advertising is cleaned up demagoguery. And advertising will always be with us. Just to be sure I knew what I was talking about (critical thinking?) I just looked up "demagoguery": "impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace." Prejudice and emotion will always be with us -- even the least prejudiced and least a prisoner of their emotions. Besides, without emotion, we can't even make decisions. (That's clearly another discussion, but it's worth noting.) So can we really complain about superficial prejudice and emotion when we are all subject to it at some level? Perhaps the need is for self-awareness -- and even more for having a high regard for self-awareness -- so that one can learn about one's prejudices and emotions and stand back from them when appropriate. Can we teach that? (It helps to have good role models. Obviously we have had exactly the opposite in our current president.) Actually, though, a high regard for self-awareness might be easier to teach than critical thinking. So perhaps there is hope. But the danger there is to fall prey to melodrama. It's not easy. I'll nominate Glen as a good role model, though. How can we make your persona more widely visible? -- Russ _ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- Orlando Leibovitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.orlandoleibovitz.com Studio Telephone: 505-820-6183 FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness
The current *Discover Magazine* solicited "Advice for the next president" from a number of prominent scientists. The longest by far was from Lawrence Krauss. Among his other points he said that Science generally functions by unambiguously determining what is wrong, not what is right. ... And the process produces a truly open mind. One of the greatest experience scientists, indeed anyone, can have is to have some truly and deeply cherished idea proved wrong by the evidence of reality, for only in this way can we learn to look beyond our a priori prejudices and be willing to judge the world for the way it is, not the way one would like it to be. The experience of finding out that one has to look beyond one's prejudice is the same sort of benefit one gets from self-awareness. So even though it doesn't have self-awareness as a goal, science offers some of the same benefits to its practitioners. -- Russ On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:09 AM, Russ Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Richard Feynman said that "Science is what we have learned about how not to > fool ourselves about the way the world is." To the extent that it achieves > that goal, science works even without individual self-awareness. That's > really quite an accomplishment, to have created a way of being in the world > that succeeds reasonably well without having to depend on individual > subjective honesty. > > For the most part, if we aren't honest with ourselves and with each other, > we all suffer negative consequences. Now that I've written that, it seems to > me that "honesty with oneself" is not a bad definition of "self-awareness." > Another way of putting it is that self-awareness is what keeps us from > fooling ourselves about our subjective experience. Contrast this with > Feynman's definition. > > Science works reasonably well even without individual self-awareness in > that it relies on community self-verification. In some ways science is the > self-awareness of a community of people about what can be known about the > world. Obviously science is not about everything -- in particular > inter-personal values. But within its domain I think it does a pretty good > job of keeping everyone involved reasonably honest -- and especially keeping > the community as a whole reasonably honest. There are failures and detours. > But they are usually corrected. > > I hadn't intended my original post to be about science. It was about the > importance of self-awareness when dealing with political and governance > issues. But now that we are talking about science it's an interesting > comparison. Perhaps that's why science has been so successful. It's a > methodology that isn't ultimately dependent on individual human honesty. Can > we say that about anything else? > > -- Russ > > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Orlando Leibovitz < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hello Russ, >> >> Is your comment below what you what mean by self awareness? If not could >> you describe it? Sorry if I missed this definition in an earlier email. >> >> O >> >> Russ Abbott wrote: >> >> Perhaps so, but for the most part I think of scientists as intellectually >> honest, as doing as good a job as they know how to do, and as willing to >> change their minds in the face of contrary evidence. >> >> -- Russ >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Phil Henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Russ, >>> >>> Oh, just that scientists appear to be one of the main violators of your >>> self-awareness principle. Scientists tend to describe the physical world >>> as if they are unaware that science constructs descriptive models of things >>> far too complex to model, that might behave differently from any kind of >>> model we know how to invent. That has us spending a disproportionate >>> amount of time looking into our theories for the behavior of the world >>> around us (under the streetlight for the keys lost in the alley) and letting >>> our skills in watching physical systems atrophy. >>> >>> >>> >>> Do you see the connection?Is it partly accurate? >>> >>> >>> >>> Phil Henshaw >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Russ Abbott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> *Sent:* Monday, October 06, 2008 4:04 PM >>> *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> *Cc:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm sorry, Phil, I'm missing you
Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness
Richard Feynman said that "Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is." To the extent that it achieves that goal, science works even without individual self-awareness. That's really quite an accomplishment, to have created a way of being in the world that succeeds reasonably well without having to depend on individual subjective honesty. For the most part, if we aren't honest with ourselves and with each other, we all suffer negative consequences. Now that I've written that, it seems to me that "honesty with oneself" is not a bad definition of "self-awareness." Another way of putting it is that self-awareness is what keeps us from fooling ourselves about our subjective experience. Contrast this with Feynman's definition. Science works reasonably well even without individual self-awareness in that it relies on community self-verification. In some ways science is the self-awareness of a community of people about what can be known about the world. Obviously science is not about everything -- in particular inter-personal values. But within its domain I think it does a pretty good job of keeping everyone involved reasonably honest -- and especially keeping the community as a whole reasonably honest. There are failures and detours. But they are usually corrected. I hadn't intended my original post to be about science. It was about the importance of self-awareness when dealing with political and governance issues. But now that we are talking about science it's an interesting comparison. Perhaps that's why science has been so successful. It's a methodology that isn't ultimately dependent on individual human honesty. Can we say that about anything else? -- Russ On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Orlando Leibovitz < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Russ, > > Is your comment below what you what mean by self awareness? If not could > you describe it? Sorry if I missed this definition in an earlier email. > > O > > Russ Abbott wrote: > > Perhaps so, but for the most part I think of scientists as intellectually > honest, as doing as good a job as they know how to do, and as willing to > change their minds in the face of contrary evidence. > > -- Russ > > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Phil Henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Russ, >> >> Oh, just that scientists appear to be one of the main violators of your >> self-awareness principle. Scientists tend to describe the physical world >> as if they are unaware that science constructs descriptive models of things >> far too complex to model, that might behave differently from any kind of >> model we know how to invent. That has us spending a disproportionate >> amount of time looking into our theories for the behavior of the world >> around us (under the streetlight for the keys lost in the alley) and letting >> our skills in watching physical systems atrophy. >> >> >> >> Do you see the connection?Is it partly accurate? >> >> >> >> Phil Henshaw >> >> >> >> *From:* Russ Abbott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> *Sent:* Monday, October 06, 2008 4:04 PM >> *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> *Cc:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness >> >> >> >> I'm sorry, Phil, I'm missing your point. How does your comment relate to >> my argument that self-awareness is a primary good and a possible way around >> the difficulty most people have with critical thinking? >> >> -- Russ >> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Phil Henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Well Russ, what if a group of scientists were to acknowledge that science >> actually just seems to be descriptive after all..., and looking through the >> holes one seems able to actually see signs of a physical world after all! >> Than sort of 'emperor's new clothes' moment might be enough to turn >> everyone's attention to value of self-critical thinking wouldn't it?!;-) >> >> >> >> Phil >> >> >> >> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On >> Behalf Of *Russ Abbott >> *Sent:* Sunday, October 05, 2008 10:06 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM, glen e. p. ropella < >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> So the first step is for each individual to accept their responsibility >> to think/speak critically a
Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness
Hello Russ,
Is your comment below what you what mean by self awareness? If not could
you describe it? Sorry if I missed this definition in an earlier email.
O
Russ Abbott wrote:
Perhaps so, but for the most part I think of scientists as
intellectually honest, as doing as good a job as they know how to do,
and as willing to change their minds in the face of contrary evidence.
-- Russ
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Phil Henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Russ,
Oh, just that scientists appear to be one of the main violators of
your self-awareness principle. Scientists tend to describe the
physical world as if they are unaware that science constructs
descriptive models of things far too complex to model, that might
behave differently from any kind of model we know how to invent.
That has us spending a disproportionate amount of time looking
into our theories for the behavior of the world around us (under
the streetlight for the keys lost in the alley) and letting our
skills in watching physical systems atrophy.
Do you see the connection?Is it partly accurate?
Phil Henshaw
*From:* Russ Abbott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
*Sent:* Monday, October 06, 2008 4:04 PM
*To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Cc:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness
I'm sorry, Phil, I'm missing your point. How does your comment
relate to my argument that self-awareness is a primary good and a
possible way around the difficulty most people have with critical
thinking?
-- Russ
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Phil Henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Well Russ, what if a group of scientists were to acknowledge that
science actually just seems to be descriptive after all..., and
looking through the holes one seems able to actually see signs of
a physical world after all! Than sort of 'emperor's new
clothes' moment might be enough to turn everyone's attention to
value of self-critical thinking wouldn't it?!;-)
Phil
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] *On Behalf Of *Russ Abbott
*Sent:* Sunday, October 05, 2008 10:06 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM, glen e. p. ropella
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
So the first step is for each individual to accept their
responsibility
to think/speak critically at every opportunity. The next step
is to
package such critical thinking inside an infectious wrapper so
that
it spreads across all humanity.
Yes, if it worked it would be wonderful. I'm cynical enough to
doubt that it would succeed. (1) I doubt that we can find a
wrapper infectious enough and (2) even if we did, I doubt that the
population as a whole is capable of the level of critical thinking
that we need. (That's elitism, isn't it.)
Demagoguery almost always seems to succeed. Can anything be done
about that? More discouraging is that advertising is cleaned up
demagoguery. And advertising will always be with us.
Just to be sure I knew what I was talking about (critical
thinking?) I just looked up "demagoguery": "impassioned appeals to
the prejudices and emotions of the populace."
Prejudice and emotion will always be with us -- even the least
prejudiced and least a prisoner of their emotions. Besides,
without emotion, we can't even make decisions. (That's clearly
another discussion, but it's worth noting.)
So can we really complain about superficial prejudice and emotion
when we are all subject to it at some level?
Perhaps the need is for self-awareness -- and even more for having
a high regard for self-awareness -- so that one can learn about
one's prejudices and emotions and stand back from them when
appropriate. Can we teach that? (It helps to have good role
models. Obviously we have had exactly the opposite in our current
president.)
Actually, though, a high regard for self-awareness might be easier
to teach than critical thinking. So perhaps there is hope. But the
danger there is to fall prey to melodrama. It's not easy. I'll
nominate Glen as a good role model, though. How can we make your
persona more widely visible?
-- Russ
--
Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness
Perhaps so, but for the most part I think of scientists as intellectually honest, as doing as good a job as they know how to do, and as willing to change their minds in the face of contrary evidence. -- Russ On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Phil Henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Russ, > > Oh, just that scientists appear to be one of the main violators of your > self-awareness principle. Scientists tend to describe the physical world > as if they are unaware that science constructs descriptive models of things > far too complex to model, that might behave differently from any kind of > model we know how to invent. That has us spending a disproportionate > amount of time looking into our theories for the behavior of the world > around us (under the streetlight for the keys lost in the alley) and letting > our skills in watching physical systems atrophy. > > > > Do you see the connection?Is it partly accurate? > > > > Phil Henshaw > > > > *From:* Russ Abbott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* Monday, October 06, 2008 4:04 PM > *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Cc:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness > > > > I'm sorry, Phil, I'm missing your point. How does your comment relate to > my argument that self-awareness is a primary good and a possible way around > the difficulty most people have with critical thinking? > > -- Russ > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Phil Henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well Russ, what if a group of scientists were to acknowledge that science > actually just seems to be descriptive after all..., and looking through the > holes one seems able to actually see signs of a physical world after all! > Than sort of 'emperor's new clothes' moment might be enough to turn > everyone's attention to value of self-critical thinking wouldn't it?!;-) > > > > Phil > > > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On > Behalf Of *Russ Abbott > *Sent:* Sunday, October 05, 2008 10:06 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E > > > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > So the first step is for each individual to accept their responsibility > to think/speak critically at every opportunity. The next step is to > package such critical thinking inside an infectious wrapper so that > it spreads across all humanity. > > > Yes, if it worked it would be wonderful. I'm cynical enough to doubt that > it would succeed. (1) I doubt that we can find a wrapper infectious enough > and (2) even if we did, I doubt that the population as a whole is capable of > the level of critical thinking that we need. (That's elitism, isn't it.) > > Demagoguery almost always seems to succeed. Can anything be done about > that? More discouraging is that advertising is cleaned up demagoguery. And > advertising will always be with us. > > Just to be sure I knew what I was talking about (critical thinking?) I just > looked up "demagoguery": "impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions > of the populace." > > Prejudice and emotion will always be with us -- even the least prejudiced > and least a prisoner of their emotions. Besides, without emotion, we can't > even make decisions. (That's clearly another discussion, but it's worth > noting.) > > So can we really complain about superficial prejudice and emotion when we > are all subject to it at some level? > > Perhaps the need is for self-awareness -- and even more for having a high > regard for self-awareness -- so that one can learn about one's prejudices > and emotions and stand back from them when appropriate. Can we teach that? > (It helps to have good role models. Obviously we have had exactly the > opposite in our current president.) > > Actually, though, a high regard for self-awareness might be easier to teach > than critical thinking. So perhaps there is hope. But the danger there is to > fall prey to melodrama. It's not easy. I'll nominate Glen as a good role > model, though. How can we make your persona more widely visible? > > -- Russ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness
Russ, Oh, just that scientists appear to be one of the main violators of your self-awareness principle. Scientists tend to describe the physical world as if they are unaware that science constructs descriptive models of things far too complex to model, that might behave differently from any kind of model we know how to invent. That has us spending a disproportionate amount of time looking into our theories for the behavior of the world around us (under the streetlight for the keys lost in the alley) and letting our skills in watching physical systems atrophy. Do you see the connection?Is it partly accurate? Phil Henshaw From: Russ Abbott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 4:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness I'm sorry, Phil, I'm missing your point. How does your comment relate to my argument that self-awareness is a primary good and a possible way around the difficulty most people have with critical thinking? -- Russ On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Phil Henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well Russ, what if a group of scientists were to acknowledge that science actually just seems to be descriptive after all..., and looking through the holes one seems able to actually see signs of a physical world after all! Than sort of 'emperor's new clothes' moment might be enough to turn everyone's attention to value of self-critical thinking wouldn't it?!;-) Phil From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 10:06 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So the first step is for each individual to accept their responsibility to think/speak critically at every opportunity. The next step is to package such critical thinking inside an infectious wrapper so that it spreads across all humanity. Yes, if it worked it would be wonderful. I'm cynical enough to doubt that it would succeed. (1) I doubt that we can find a wrapper infectious enough and (2) even if we did, I doubt that the population as a whole is capable of the level of critical thinking that we need. (That's elitism, isn't it.) Demagoguery almost always seems to succeed. Can anything be done about that? More discouraging is that advertising is cleaned up demagoguery. And advertising will always be with us. Just to be sure I knew what I was talking about (critical thinking?) I just looked up "demagoguery": "impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace." Prejudice and emotion will always be with us -- even the least prejudiced and least a prisoner of their emotions. Besides, without emotion, we can't even make decisions. (That's clearly another discussion, but it's worth noting.) So can we really complain about superficial prejudice and emotion when we are all subject to it at some level? Perhaps the need is for self-awareness -- and even more for having a high regard for self-awareness -- so that one can learn about one's prejudices and emotions and stand back from them when appropriate. Can we teach that? (It helps to have good role models. Obviously we have had exactly the opposite in our current president.) Actually, though, a high regard for self-awareness might be easier to teach than critical thinking. So perhaps there is hope. But the danger there is to fall prey to melodrama. It's not easy. I'll nominate Glen as a good role model, though. How can we make your persona more widely visible? -- Russ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness
I'm sorry, Phil, I'm missing your point. How does your comment relate to my argument that self-awareness is a primary good and a possible way around the difficulty most people have with critical thinking? -- Russ On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Phil Henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well Russ, what if a group of scientists were to acknowledge that science > actually just seems to be descriptive after all..., and looking through the > holes one seems able to actually see signs of a physical world after all! > Than sort of 'emperor's new clothes' moment might be enough to turn > everyone's attention to value of self-critical thinking wouldn't it?!;-) > > > > Phil > > > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On > Behalf Of *Russ Abbott > *Sent:* Sunday, October 05, 2008 10:06 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E > > > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > So the first step is for each individual to accept their responsibility > to think/speak critically at every opportunity. The next step is to > package such critical thinking inside an infectious wrapper so that > it spreads across all humanity. > > > Yes, if it worked it would be wonderful. I'm cynical enough to doubt that > it would succeed. (1) I doubt that we can find a wrapper infectious enough > and (2) even if we did, I doubt that the population as a whole is capable of > the level of critical thinking that we need. (That's elitism, isn't it.) > > Demagoguery almost always seems to succeed. Can anything be done about > that? More discouraging is that advertising is cleaned up demagoguery. And > advertising will always be with us. > > Just to be sure I knew what I was talking about (critical thinking?) I just > looked up "demagoguery": "impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions > of the populace." > > Prejudice and emotion will always be with us -- even the least prejudiced > and least a prisoner of their emotions. Besides, without emotion, we can't > even make decisions. (That's clearly another discussion, but it's worth > noting.) > > So can we really complain about superficial prejudice and emotion when we > are all subject to it at some level? > > Perhaps the need is for self-awareness -- and even more for having a high > regard for self-awareness -- so that one can learn about one's prejudices > and emotions and stand back from them when appropriate. Can we teach that? > (It helps to have good role models. Obviously we have had exactly the > opposite in our current president.) > > Actually, though, a high regard for self-awareness might be easier to teach > than critical thinking. So perhaps there is hope. But the danger there is to > fall prey to melodrama. It's not easy. I'll nominate Glen as a good role > model, though. How can we make your persona more widely visible? > > -- Russ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
