Responses 006 (2011-2012)
I have to confess that in almost every list, there is one question that seems peculiar or 'tricky' to me. For the latest list, it is Question 6, " 'It is more important to discover new ways of thinking about what is already known than to discover new data or facts.' To what extent would you agree with this claim?"
I think it looks unarguable, not in the sense that it is true and therefore not to be argued about, but in the sense that it appears to make no sense. How can there be new ways of thinking? I will explain what I mean by saying how this question might indeed make sense. Here are some ways through which this may be done.
The first way is to assume that the entity doing the thinking is not biological. We can make new machines. They can think in different ways. If the machines are complex enough, we cannot predict those ways. That might give us ways of thinking which are new to us.
The second way is to assume that the entity doing the thinking is biological but not human. We could try to think like a non-human life-form — a bird or a reptile, for example. That's assuming humans haven't tried this before, that it would be different from how humans have been known to think, and that it is possible at all.
The third way is to assume that the potential of all human brains in history has possibly not yet been fulfilled. From this perspective, we are all capable of thinking in new ways. The problem is to figure out what the non-new ways are, and then think orthogonally from those. If you can, because a human brain might not be capable of thinking in a way that is different from all other ways human brains have thought.
There are many more ways you could try to have this question make sense. But at this point, I must pause and say this: not only does the question assume the existence of something that is hard to prove (i.e. 'new ways of thinking') but it assumes that you can argue about whether discovering such things (if such things exist) is possible — and that you can decide how important it is.
The latter part of the question points to what this importance is to be measured against — that is, the importance of discovering new data or facts. This part is easy, because the discovery of new data or facts is quite a bit easier to establish than the discovery of 'new ways of thinking'.
To summarise, a candidate answering this question must first establish what is meant by 'new ways of thinking'. Then it must be demonstrated that such things can be discovered and evaluated in terms of importance, when compared with the discovery of new data or facts.
Personally, I'd say it is of no importance at all, since discovering new ways of thinking is hard to prove, and new ways of thinking need not be of benefit to us at all. We can't even imagine what benefit they would be to us, since they are unknown to us. But we have no choice but to discover new data and/or facts — this happens all the time and we might as well make the best of it.
=====
Note: I have not mentioned the creative process. That's because creativity does not consist of 'new ways of thinking' but old ways of thinking used in new combinations, sometimes with new materials or processes. An idea is not a 'way of thinking', but the product of a way of thinking.
I think it looks unarguable, not in the sense that it is true and therefore not to be argued about, but in the sense that it appears to make no sense. How can there be new ways of thinking? I will explain what I mean by saying how this question might indeed make sense. Here are some ways through which this may be done.
The first way is to assume that the entity doing the thinking is not biological. We can make new machines. They can think in different ways. If the machines are complex enough, we cannot predict those ways. That might give us ways of thinking which are new to us.
The second way is to assume that the entity doing the thinking is biological but not human. We could try to think like a non-human life-form — a bird or a reptile, for example. That's assuming humans haven't tried this before, that it would be different from how humans have been known to think, and that it is possible at all.
The third way is to assume that the potential of all human brains in history has possibly not yet been fulfilled. From this perspective, we are all capable of thinking in new ways. The problem is to figure out what the non-new ways are, and then think orthogonally from those. If you can, because a human brain might not be capable of thinking in a way that is different from all other ways human brains have thought.
There are many more ways you could try to have this question make sense. But at this point, I must pause and say this: not only does the question assume the existence of something that is hard to prove (i.e. 'new ways of thinking') but it assumes that you can argue about whether discovering such things (if such things exist) is possible — and that you can decide how important it is.
The latter part of the question points to what this importance is to be measured against — that is, the importance of discovering new data or facts. This part is easy, because the discovery of new data or facts is quite a bit easier to establish than the discovery of 'new ways of thinking'.
To summarise, a candidate answering this question must first establish what is meant by 'new ways of thinking'. Then it must be demonstrated that such things can be discovered and evaluated in terms of importance, when compared with the discovery of new data or facts.
Personally, I'd say it is of no importance at all, since discovering new ways of thinking is hard to prove, and new ways of thinking need not be of benefit to us at all. We can't even imagine what benefit they would be to us, since they are unknown to us. But we have no choice but to discover new data and/or facts — this happens all the time and we might as well make the best of it.
=====
Note: I have not mentioned the creative process. That's because creativity does not consist of 'new ways of thinking' but old ways of thinking used in new combinations, sometimes with new materials or processes. An idea is not a 'way of thinking', but the product of a way of thinking.
Labels: Epistemology, Odd Questions, Odd Thoughts, Thinking
etched with acid at 3:07:00 pm
29 Comments:
Although the question seems at a first glance to be puzzling, I think there aren't too many approaches to interpreting the phrase "new ways of thinking" which would make much sense (in a feasible way). The hint is in the phrase "about what is already known". Think over here seems to be more about deductive and inductive processes given changes in technology and tools available. On example might be the difference in the diagnosis on psychosis - from demonic possession to mental illness - all based on the same evidence.
I disagree. To me the question seems fairly straightforward. The phrase "new ways of thinking" seems quite puzzling taken out of context, however the hint lies in the next phrase "about what is already known". The word think it seems refers to the changes in the deductive and inductive reasoning due to better evidence (either due to exceptional circumstances or advancements in technology and as a result the tools to collect evidence). Examples would include the Keynesian economics which was a breath of fresh air at the time, and the differing diagnosis on psychosis - ranging from demonic possession in the 1700s to mental illness currently.
arjun: None of those indicate new ways of thinking — they are old ways of thinking (logical inductive/deductive processes) applied to new tools and data.
Your example on diagnosis is not a new way of thinking, but a new finding based on applying an old way of thinking to old evidence, in the light of more recent knowledge.
Similarly, just because Keynesian economics was a breath of fresh air does not mean it indicated a new way of thinking. It was an old way of thinking applied to a new discipline. Consider computer science; it uses very old ways of thinking but applies them to a technology that did not exist a century ago.
Yes I understand that these are not in any stretch of the imagination "new ways of thinking". I admit that those are pretty bad examples as well, but I am merely trying to find a workable approach to the question.
The question presented by the examiner seems undo able because of the word "thinking", however the rest of the phrasing in the question seems to suggest another meaning intentioned for that word. However,
I suppose you are right, you can't force an approach onto a question. Maybe some questions are just left unanswered?
arjun: Perhaps the best way to tackle the question is to try the head-on approach. Let us assume (for the sake of argument), that what is known has only n ways of thinking applied to it at first (intuitively, n=1). Then it becomes overwhelmingly likely that creative thinking will produce more ways of thinking about something.
The trick is to make 'new way of thinking about what is already known' into a single noun phrase without breaking it up. Obviously, there cannot be infinite existing ways of thinking already applied to what is already known. So there is still plenty of space to come up with 'new ways of thinking about what is already known'.
The problem I struggle with is: 'How would you identify a new way of thinking?' One likely answer is to reply somewhat disingenuously, "If it's new to me, that will do." :D
I don't necessarily agree with the ways in which you attempt to define "new" here. To me this all depends on the context and more about perspective. An "old" way of thinking from one discipline or paradigm could be applied to another discipline/paradigm and in such a way be considered "new" within that field. I don't think "new" need refer to something that has never been done before. By defining it in this way the essay becomes fairly straightforward to tackle and, in my mind, a valid way in which to tackle it. As you say: if its new to me that'll do!
gjonss: exactly—the one useful way to tackle the essay is to substitute the word 'paradigms' for 'ways of thinking'. That allows the use of a known paradigm in a different context or in application to something it has never been used on before.
I think what gjonns has mentioned has to be taken into consideration. I believe the important phrase is "about what is already known" like arjun has pointed out. If I define "a new way of thinking about what is already known" as a wholly different perspective regarding a certain issue, then perhaps it can ease the understanding of the question. Upon initial reading of the question, I was perplexed. However after mulling it over, it became a little more understandable and I do not think it is as complicated as it might seem on the first read. There are many examples that you can use across many AOKs that support this question if you approach it as what gjonss has mentioned (as well as what I have regurgitated). So essentially, what you define a "new way of thinking" is what shapes your essay.
Sadiq: I would say that you have to be very careful for the simple reason that what you might think as 'a new way of thinking about what is already known' lends itself to counterfactual abuse. For example, the idea that people in the 15th century thought the world was flat, or that Keynesian economics was something new, or that psychosis has been reconceptualised as a mental illness.
In the first case, it is simply false; in the second case, Keynesian economics was part of an ongoing intellectual argument that dates back to Plato; and in the third case, the idea of 'psychosis' had to be developed first: it is not quite the same thing as the ancient idea of demonic possession.
So yes, be careful and do well. Do your research and try not to talk about science as if it existed before the 18th century (at best).
My first draft did not particularly impress my teacher. He said one of my examples, in human sciences, was terrific but my other one, in natural sciences, was too vague. I was hoping that you might be able to assist me with a few ideas or examples for this question? I would greatly appreciate your assistance.
steve: The key text here would seem to be Thomas Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions' (1962), because that talks about paradigm shifts — essentially new ways of thinking, as a community, about something that already exists. But once you read what I just wrote, you might already be able to see how that could apply to your own learning experiences.
Question is: was coming up with a new paradigm more important than learning new material to think about? The reason you should choose your own personal examples is that while a new paradigm might not be really 'a new way of thinking' to the rest of the world, your paradigm shift is new to YOU. Thus, you can assess its relative importance as a knower.
I have found your guidelines to be very helpful but I had one question pertaining to the idea of Robots to find "new ways of thinking", and your statement that creative and innovative thinking is not a new thought process, rather a new combination of thoughts with the help of tools etc. Aren't robots tools and tech?
I've found your guidelines to be very helpful so far. I was revising my essay and reading what you had said but I had a question pertaining to your position on Robots, and your statement about creative thinking not being "new ways of thinking" since they just use old thinking ways but combine it with new tools. Couldn't robots be considered as new tools as well?
wizkhalifa: It is possible to think of anything as a tool. That said, it is also helpful to think of a tool as a technological construct designed to accomplish a specific task. If you can specify the task, then the tool merely follows your conceptualisation. E.g. hammer, screwdriver.
However, in some cases, the tool is actually a toolkit in which the tools may have extensive undiscovered synergies and purposes. That is why some subjects cannot exist until such tool(kits) are created — for example, computer science is a way of thinking that cannot be explored properly without actually having computers. In fact, it is hard to conceive of computer science (though not impossible) without computers existing in some form first.
"new ways of thinking of what is already known" in my opinion refers to the improvisation of facts that have been discovered already... like how pluto was thought to be a planet but as the aspect of questioning what is known has discarded the theory of pluto as a planet..
So the problem in this question no 6 is understanding which is more important, discovering new facts or questioning what is known by discovering new ways of thinking
Ashika: the Pluto event is a non-issue — it is only a case of redefinition; it's like saying 1000 sq ft is a lot of space and then deciding later that you can only say 'a lot of space' for spaces over 3000 sq ft. You're right about the problem, though; that's what it says in the question.
I'm sorry to bother you again but I really need some help with my essay. Throughout my essay, I've been presenting the benefits of rethinking what we know over discovering new data but I feel that I need to speak of the reverse; how it is important, at times, to discover new data than to rethink what we know. Can you possibly help me out here?
MemK: Consider data as a limited and finite closed set of elements (i.e. no new pieces). Then the possible relations between these elements are constrained, and no matter how many new ways of thinking you deploy, you will exhaust the possibilities. However, once you have new data and thus have introduced new elements, new ways of thought may become possible.
For example, consider the datum "stable airborne platforms are possible" in the context of pre-1800 military operations. The earliest well-known deployment, by the Montgolfiers, c. 1780, forced military thinkers to create new ways of thinking (i.e. a true 3D appreciation of the battlefield), which they would not have bothered with otherwise.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is mathematical formula (or any formula in general) considered as a way of thinking? For example, without Binomial Distribution, we should be able to calculate probability of given continuous events just by using original probability formula but after a while, the figure will be too small/irrational for us to calculate the probability manually (time-consuming as well), so we invent a new way of thinking, that is Binomial Distribution formula that allows us to calculate what we previously cannot calculate. By following this thinking, we can now calculate and get new data.
Another example of mine was the classification of elements in periodic table as way of thinking. Instead of searching and discovering new elements with no prior knowledge of it, we create periodic table and classify elements so that we can predict their properties. In recent times, we are able to predict properties of elements that we haven't even discovered yet like Unu elements. When founded, the elements mostly obey our predictions. This seems more convenient compared to discovering new elements that we ourselves are not clear of their properties.
Are my examples correct?
Faris: Assuming a normal distribution and thinking in statistical or probabilistic terms is a way of thinking; using formulae and relying on them as a measure of truth or predictability is also one — but a formula itself or a mathematical distribution is not a way of thinking. Similarly, the periodic table is not a way of thinking, but seeing things in terms of cyclic, spiral or otherwise repeating/recurring patterns or quasi-patterns is a way of thinking. When you combine the way of thinking with the data, you can construct and validate something like a distribution or a periodic table.
Trebuchet, is it okay if I contact you in any way regarding a concern I have with this question?
Sadiq: Go ahead. I'm listening. :)
I really think that we need to move away from the idea that a "new way of thinking" means something non-human. to be honest, if that were really the intention of the question, it would be a pretty ridiculous question. how are we possibly expected to come up with examples when nothing of the sort has ever been done before? "new ways of thinking about what is already known" could just as well refer to something like the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, darwin's theory of evolution or the development of the heliocentric model of the solar system. in all of these cases, scientists (well maybe not for the heliocentric example, but you know what I mean) took information that was already known- already present in the scientific community- and found new ways of making connections between this information, in order to come up with an explanation that made sense of the data available. this could very well be considered a new way of thinking. it's a new way of thinking about the relationships between pieces of information. IB is not asking us to revolutionize the human thought process, simply consider findings in a new light.
unknown: I really think you should avoid being narrow-minded. It's quite clear that the question has to address the human context, since otherwise the knower's perspective is nullified completely. However, it is indeed unclear what a 'new way of thinking' really is; defining it to your advantage is one of the joys of debate case construction. :)
Am I really the one being narrow-minded here? You seem to think that your interpretation is the only way to approach this question, and I do think that your approach could be valid, as the points you made were entirely reasonable within the context of said interpretation. However, I have several friends who have written on this topic, taking entirely opposite approaches, and received excellent marks.
Unknown: Yes, you are being relatively narrow-minded — a good look at what I've written in this post, in the replies I've made, and in this blog as a whole will show that I never claimed this was the only approach; indeed, I have offered the broadest possible interpretation of the question, absent the most obvious one (which is the 'any Tom-Dick-or-Harry's new idea is a new way of thinking' one).
Read my post again, and you will see clues like, "Here are some ways..." and the cautious words and phrases, "I think..." and "appears to..." — in what sense to these reflect narrow-mindedness? So please think about it a bit more before you get back to us. Thanks!
Unknown: As for your friends taking 'entirely opposite approaches', I am certain they don't exist, or that if they do, they didn't take 'entirely opposite approaches'. Why am I so certain? Think about it carefully... :)
my point is that you're criticizing other peoples' approaches by saying that new ideas are not new ways of thinking. however, other successful approaches to the topic that I have seen did treat a new idea as such. therefore I think we can conclude that the most markers of these essays would not have a hard time accepting that when someone looks at old facts and information and finds a new way of putting them together to draw a new conclusion, this could constitute a new way of thinking about those facts. it's a new way of thinking about something, not necessarily a literal new thought process. of course, you're a "former tok teacher" and therefore always know better than the student, so I guess it's pointless to argue.
Unknown: And my point to you is that 'a new way of thinking' is necessarily equivalent to 'a new route from A to B'. The ideas and concepts in thinking are like landmarks and developments on a map. You can indeed find a new way of thinking by creating a new route across the landscape.
But fluffy equating of 'new ideas' or 'new findings' to 'new ways of thinking' won't get you there because there is insufficient analysis. New ideas or findings are not new ways of thinking, but the products of such, or signposts that may lead to such. One should be careful; being woolly-minded is as bad an error as being narrow-minded.
Sarcasm I don't mind, but it doesn't add to the discussion. If you offer a robust argument, I'll treat it appropriately. If you look carefully, a) I have shown agreement with the substantive part of your argument (see above) but b) I also feel you can (and could have been) be more exact.
Your earlier rhetorical question, "How are we possibly expected to come up with examples when nothing of the sort has ever been done before?" doesn't make sense because if it were not possible, then new ways of thinking are not possible. You can indeed come up with examples in an historical context that had never at the time been thought of before.
What I did was to broaden this obvious target area. What if you had to come up with a way of knowing -never- used by humans before? Could you? Is it possible? Is there something in our brains that is limiting? This was the thesis of Melvin Konner's 'The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit'.
Post a Comment
<< Home