Atomic Thought (Part 1)
The idea that things can be reduced to 'indivisibles' has been around for millennia. Two kinds of 'indivisible' concept predominate: either you find things so small that nothing is smaller (i.e. fundamental particles and the concomitant idea of 'quantum' – the smallest gap or difference in things) or you find that the whole universe is one thing expressed in different ways (i.e. one indivisible continuum with odd snarls in it like a twisted multidimensional blanket).
In more recent times, people like Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein sought in various ways to reduce thought to basic elements, with which all other thoughts could be expressed – forlorn endeavours but still an interesting kind of project.
But there must be some basics, surely?
Yes, I suppose there are. Having had the occasion to teach literature, economics, history, chemistry, physics, mathematics and computer science over the years, I must confess to a few bad habits.
Firstly, I've always tried to figure out what the basics (or 'first things') of each discipline are.
Secondly, I've always tried to link them together in some sort of coherent narrative for each discipline.
Thirdly, I've always tried to link these basics across disciplines.
Why 'bad habits'? I think that in many cases, even if I was successful, elements of the narrative constitute wishful thinking. You can create a beautiful narrative that works on many levels, but it still might not be true. Take a simple conceptualisation of science, for example.
Supposing I observe a million things and craft a theory that accounts for all these observations. Well, what I've done is join the dots, which doesn't necessarily constitute truth. But what if I then predict the next 100,000 observations successfully using my theory? Well, then I might still be joining more of the same dots. But what if I then create an experiment specifically to disprove my theory and fail? Wow, that's... science, for now.
The problem is that a lot of our criteria are flagrantly metaphysical, and we don't acknowledge that. The ideas of what to observe, what to eliminate, what to build upon, what to try and prove incorrect; a lot of these things require us to make value judgements and use our intuition. The reason people get conflicted and find error in science is that at the heart of it, science is a human endeavour. It has all the variability of the human condition, desperately kept under some sort of control.
So where do we go from here? I'll be taking a quick look at basics as I scan this year's Theory of Knowledge essay questions and leave some thoughts on them.
In more recent times, people like Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein sought in various ways to reduce thought to basic elements, with which all other thoughts could be expressed – forlorn endeavours but still an interesting kind of project.
But there must be some basics, surely?
Yes, I suppose there are. Having had the occasion to teach literature, economics, history, chemistry, physics, mathematics and computer science over the years, I must confess to a few bad habits.
Firstly, I've always tried to figure out what the basics (or 'first things') of each discipline are.
Secondly, I've always tried to link them together in some sort of coherent narrative for each discipline.
Thirdly, I've always tried to link these basics across disciplines.
Why 'bad habits'? I think that in many cases, even if I was successful, elements of the narrative constitute wishful thinking. You can create a beautiful narrative that works on many levels, but it still might not be true. Take a simple conceptualisation of science, for example.
Supposing I observe a million things and craft a theory that accounts for all these observations. Well, what I've done is join the dots, which doesn't necessarily constitute truth. But what if I then predict the next 100,000 observations successfully using my theory? Well, then I might still be joining more of the same dots. But what if I then create an experiment specifically to disprove my theory and fail? Wow, that's... science, for now.
The problem is that a lot of our criteria are flagrantly metaphysical, and we don't acknowledge that. The ideas of what to observe, what to eliminate, what to build upon, what to try and prove incorrect; a lot of these things require us to make value judgements and use our intuition. The reason people get conflicted and find error in science is that at the heart of it, science is a human endeavour. It has all the variability of the human condition, desperately kept under some sort of control.
So where do we go from here? I'll be taking a quick look at basics as I scan this year's Theory of Knowledge essay questions and leave some thoughts on them.
Labels: Atomism, Epistemology, Philosophy, Thought
etched with acid at 8:53:00 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home