QuickTopic free message boards logo

The document below has a numbered blue "comment dot" () following selected items. Click a blue dot to add your comment regarding that item. A glasses icon () indicates existing comments on an item; click it to see them. Click the buttons above to navigate between views.

You can add a general comment here:
 View general commentsAdd a general commentAdd a general comment
Show comments in-line

Page 1  2  3  4  5  All 
<<prev page    next page>>



            The following seven episteme types are a rough categorization scheme, open for change and improvement.  I have yet to compare it with other schemes. Add your comment on this item121


            SEVEN EPISTEMES Add your comment on this item122


            Pre Scientific - Patterns of Resemblence Add your comment on this item123


            Our bodies/brains evolved to optimize functioning in a local, perceived environment.  The many, nearly direct mapping of stimulus "objects" onto neural patterns demonstrates this. Naive realism is the natural perspective for this (perceptual-motor) domain. Early humans knew and lived local. What was beyond how far they might walk was another domain, as were the domain of dreams, visions, and mysteries. Invented and retold stories sufficed for the domain of mystery -- which included the spirits and gods, which were ascribed a unique but different ontology. We don't know the "qualitative nature" of early human experientials. Given the vast contemporary diversity in the field of human experientials we must consider theories where early humans had radically different experientials as compared to (the diversity among) contemporary humans. Add your comment on this item124


            Foucault explicates the worldview before systematic/experimental science as one of primary attention to perceived resemblances and similarities. A pattern of moss on a tree that looked like a face was a "fact" in this worldview. "Classification" in this episteme was very complex, and not according to "simple features" as came later.  The diversity of worldviews within this domain of the sensory immediate is yet unknown. According to Foucault, in France, there were two major shifts from this episteme (for the educated): first to a worldview of "systematic classification" and then to a worldview of "dynamic systems". There are many different ways the shifts occurred in different populations at different times.  What is important to remember is that at any place and time, there exist a mix of different epistemes in that population.  In this 21st Century a large percent of the human population continues to live in the pre scientific worldview of meaningful resemblances; which may include persons of all economic and power levels. Add your comment on this item125


            Early Scientific - Galileo to Newton Add your comment on this item126


            A symbiosis of Formal_Experimentation & Organized_Data, Mathematical Theories, Technological Instrumentation, Printed Texts, Formal "Scientific" Education emerged.  Although specific, isolated scientific behaviors go back to antiquity, I attribute to Galileo (or those he got it from) as the turning point for a new and systematic process of gaining knowledge about our environment.  In those early times, reporting very explicit descriptions of equipment and process was as important as reporting results {a practice virtually abandoned the last decades of the 20th century}. Of course, no transitions are smooth. This early period saw the emergence of an "established" scientific process (far more complex than the propagandized "Scientific Method").  In spite of his deep interest in "metaphysics", Newton launched the purely rational social institution of SCIENCE.  {This is nuet's superfical model.} Also, the centuries long shift in mathematics from the geometric-frame to the algebraic-frame occurred in this time and the ultimate scientific patterns were enshrined in equations. Add your comment on this item127


            Classical Scientific Add your comment on this item128


            This is the rapid developmental period in search for the LAWS of NATURE (limited to what phenomena were suitable for scientific study).  To me, Maxwell's synthesis and his field equations is the high point - but there were many, many other significant discoveries - both empirical and conceptual, and in a third domain of symbolic notation and graphical representation. This last and often under noticed domain, which emerged as I designed curricula in math/science for elementary school children, defined "maths" as a large family of concrete languages - algebra being the language for system description and calculus being the language for system change. The utility of maths is their ability to represent abstract patterns in concrete (observable, modifiable, and replicative) forms.  This is a branch topic for later exploration. Add your comment on this item129


            This scientific epistemology continued in disciplines other than physics all through the 20th century, with the so-called "physics envy" (to the Classical ideal). It was in this episteme that nuet got his first introduction to Science, but with exciting teasers of what was to come (from reading the popular works of Sir Arthur Eddington in hign school - Eddington's "heavy" work in "Fundamental Theory" became a passion for nuet in graduate school). Add your comment on this item130


            If an assessment instrument were developed to measure the percent of association with these epistemes of science among practicing scientists, I speculate that most practicing scientists work in the classical episteme - even though the phenomenon of their research is associated with more advanced epistemes.  I would like to see a team or two take on this project. Add your comment on this item131


            There are many subtle differences between the Classical and the Early epistemes.  Science develops its own philosophy in the Classical and diverges from academic philosophy. Advances in mathematics and technology (experimental instrumentation) became more synergistic. Researchers became members of scientific communities. In some populations "science" became a popular topic for the educated many. Science trumped Religion among many. Add your comment on this item132


            Alternatives to Classical Scientific Add your comment on this item133


            I know very little about the alternatives to mainstream science during this classical period. Alchemy, astrology, and other explorations continued in Europe and the Americas - and the science of the Middle East, Far East, and the science/technology of indigenous peoples made progress during this period. Non scientific worldviews were the majority worldviews. "Science" became a term known to more, but most only knew of scientific "stories" (descriptions of causal, mechanistically "explained" processes) and had little knowledge of the intricacies of scientific epistemology and methodology.  Indeed, even today I would wager that most practicing scientists do not believe in the "full" process of scientific epistemology.  They can play by the "rules" when not confronted with difficulty; but they reveal an underlying "faith-based" epistemology (faith in their scientific dogma) when challenged. The influence on science by economic, political, and military forces has captured many R&D projects into a variety of hybrid practices that "look like science" to those not deeply knowledgeable on the deeper foundations of science. Add your comment on this item134

              Add your comment on this item135

            For a deep study of the social aspect of science, as covered by the new academic discipline of Science/Technology Studies, read the works of Steve Fuller; specifically Social Epistemology  (1988). Add your comment on this item136

              Add your comment on this item137

            Relativistic-Quantum Scientific Add your comment on this item138


            While "normal" scientists (ala Kuhn) forecast the end of scientific advancement, "exploratory" scientists were picking at the few knots the "normals" expected to be easily untangled and absorbed. The serendipitous discovery of radiation leading to nested micro-worlds and the need for a probabilistic/stochastic (instead of classically mechanistic) frame for theory (also driven by the changing nature of data and techniques for data processing) led to so-called Quantum Theories [which may eventually be revealed as but a very elaborate curve-fitting procedure for data analysis, without ontological content].  Concurrently, Einstein resolved a number of paradoxes in theoretical electro-dynamics by an elegant reframing of the concepts of space, time, and measurement. The tweaking of Classical equations for Relativity is essential for all contemporary science; but the phenomenal metaphorical shifts involved in the foundation of relativistic cognition -- offered by Einstein and Eddington -- has had negligible impact on contemporary scientific practice (except for a few playing with strings, multiple-dimensions, branes and other mathematical fantasies -- who do get some public attention).View comments on this item Add your comment on this item139


            Science in the 20th Century was primarily driven by the cascading improvement of instrumentation and experimental systems, data collection and processing, economic and military demands and support, and an archaic educational system grossly unsuited for the education of scientists and engineers. Science education, provided the growing scientific establishments workers for ordinary scientific tasks - building up dynasties or "schools" of indoctrinated followers - but at the same time curtailed the preparation of persons for "exploratory" science and to protect science from increasing social interference. Add your comment on this item140


            Data and consequent "knowledge" exploded in many disciplines, and cross-disciplines - although many in the older, classical, scientific frame. Due to multiple forces, established science morphed into a flurry of highly competitive religious-like cults. Yet, the feed forward synergy of technological advancement pushed science, in the early years of the 21st Century, to a state of awesome overload of data gathering and processing potentials.  What is revealed daily about new "point" discoveries in many domains is only a tiny fraction of what is now possible. Add your comment on this item141


            This world of "modern" science is very poorly known by the vast majority of humans.  I speak not only of the very poor who have not had access to scientific information, but also to the world leaders of economic, financial, governmental, intelligence, and military institutions.  These decision-makers "know" selected tid-bits, which they may champion application without consideration of consequences. The "world of science" for most humans is a "Matrix", a distorted, constructed world. Add your comment on this item142


            Although many may report having heard key scientific terms, most would be unable to define them. Some may "know" simplified scientific stories of "how things happen" or "how things work" - but most would stumble if asked to explicate on their knowledge. But, the utility of science as a very useful epistemological process is "known" by very few - and they are in strong controversy about the fine points of SCIENCE, THE PROCESS.  To muddle the scene, video and print fiction (and pseudo non-fiction) confuses "fact" and "fantasy" among their audiences; and science (as a method) is under challenge by faith-based religions. The real and significant limitations of science are almost impossible to discuss in this atmosphere. In addition, on deep analysis, the different scientific disciplines are very diverse in methodology and criteria, and the imagined, universal  "The Scientific Method" appears to be a myth.  I believe there is a stable core to scientific practice, but it has yet to be explicated. Add your comment on this item143


            The fact that most competent scientists and engineers have limited comprehension of the basics of their disciplines is disturbing. Those who appreciate science, as an epistemology are a very small minority, although the IMAGE of science as presented by the media leads most persons to believe they "know" what "science is", even though they "aren't good at math". Add your comment on this item144


            Pseudo Science/Tech processes can be applied to many limited ventures by entrepreneurs, criminals, and sociopaths. In some interpretations, there is very little science being conducted today, only technological innovations.  Are Science and Engineering more sibling disciplines that so-called "Father and Son"? What is the line between applied science and engineering? Is "atomic physics" basic science or applied quantum physics (the basic)? Add your comment on this item145


            Liberation Scientific Add your comment on this item146


            In every era there are a few who are liberated from faith in the established worldview. Some write, other act, in challenge. Most are quite accurate in pointing out the weaknesses of established views; but are often confused and naive when they propose alternatives. I have always been attracted to so-called "crackpots" for this reason - to better understand establishments and their weaknesses, but not for information about alternatives and solutions. Add your comment on this item147


            Recently I started reading Utopia by Sir Thomas More, only to discover that commentaries on the book that I had read attended to More's somewhat superficial attempts to answer his own deep queries about the nature of human social systems - these queries being  the primary focus of the author. Sir Thomas presented queries and gave a few examples of possible responses; readers and commentators grabbed the examples, found them wanting (as expected, given the times and the "real" magnitude of the task required) and ignored the significance of More's queries. Similar queries today get the same treatment.View comments on this item Add your comment on this item148


            The 20th Century saw a wealth of alternative ideas about reality and truth that either challenged or expanded on the established scientific worldview. Most of these alternative ideas were rejected by the scientific establishments - and many for quite legitimate reasons: they were not science.  But a few were consistent with scientific processes and yet the data was not looked at by established scientists - or was rejected using non-scientific arguments. Add your comment on this item149

              Add your comment on this item150

            As we struggle with our Crisis-of-Crises many seek to establish their foundations in "all-powerful"  SCIENCE, of which most have poor understanding.  Many cherry-pick from established science those ideas that support their beliefs; some reverting to classical science, others to distorted forms of modern science.  This has resulted in a confusing hodge-podge of pseudo-scientific proclamations and ravings.  This may be too harsh.  Most are very well intentioned. Many are truly excited by seed metaphorical ideas but are naive as to how to turn their metaphorical ideas into practical action. Add your comment on this item151


            To me, the proof of the pudding is success.  What defines success? Being able to organize a stable group of persons who dialog on an important issue, is never - in itself - a measure of success.  They have "succeeded" in creating a viable dialog network; but what are the larger consequences of the network? That a great cotemporary  proliferation of critical discourse has not led (and is not, as yet, in nuet's opinion, leading) to viable self-organizing, hints to the probability that discourse alone is insufficient to our need. What are we to do if our "best" is inadequate?   The basic techniques of science (and technology & mathematics) must be applied to THE REALITY OF OUR CRISIS-OF-CRISES, not as a new scientific discipline but as an R&D agenda. This agenda must assess our current knowledge and competencies freely and without bias --an impossible task, but for which this "impossibility" can be compensated for.  Tune in Tomorrow. Add your comment on this item152


            Beyond - Critique of Established Epistemic Process Add your comment on this item153


            From as far back as I can (poorly) remember, I have critiqued the radicals, the opponents of establishments, those very hard at work trying to create a better world. I have always done this with the intent to improve their functioning by helping place what they were doing in a broader context - where they might establish synergistic relations with others and create collaborations.  For many reasons, these critiques are usually taken as criticisms and attacks on persons and visions - as I fail to adequately present the issues to meet the unique personal cognitive styles of those I hope to "reach".  Many activists adamantly don't want "to be educated".View comments on this item Add your comment on this item154


            I won't attempt to explicate this episteme here. The topic titles don't even fit into an accepted list of important issues. Ordinary "communication" is not an adequate medium for sharing across paradigms.  The process for sharing across paradigms must be deeply interactive, highly participatory, and adequately facilitated. This is NOT a simple process to be accomplished in a few brief, often passive, settings.View comments on this item Add your comment on this item155


            It has been my strategy, from the beginning - back in 1975, to concentrate on building an organically, self-organizing movement (a network of social systems) LIMITED INITIALLY to those of this "transcendent" (beyond the establishment AND their opponents) worldview -- imagineering BEYOND THE BEST.  This is not done in the spirit of elitism; but with the acknowledgement that our nu "system of paradigm shifts" can only be shared by a viable community of teams of dedicated and competent persons.  A lone individual or even a loose network of activists cannot engage this challenge. Passive, mass-media strategies cannot succeed. Add your comment on this item156


            Without using deception and violence, we cannot force others to behave consist with our views. And we strongly reject any violent strategies.  We cannot control others; but we can provide quality education, seafing (supporting, enabling, augmenting, facilitating), catalysis and enzymatic acceleration and augmentation, and maps for navigating the turbulence at the boundary between chaos and order; where the origination of living entities abides. Add your comment on this item157


            This episteme will appear highly naive to many. We are a minority within a minority within a minority within a minority. We are never adequately perceived and our behavior turns off others (to be open with us). So, do we give up (what)?  I have been designing success strategies, and I believe I have many (although none are guaranteed). nuet's strategic scenarios are attentive to every difficulty (we can imagine) and design work_a_rounds for all (known) difficulties.  It is a strategy that will fail ONLY if it is theoretically impossible to succeed! There are no (valid under cross-examination) arguments against success that cannot be successfully challenged. Add your comment on this item158


            LESSON: New paradigms (new habits of behavior) emerge only when practiced. Old paradigms are never abandoned using logical argument. A two-front strategy is always best: create the nu concurrent with shutting down the old.View comments on this item Add your comment on this item159


<<prev page    next page>>
Page 1  2  3  4  5  All