And not a moment too soon.
I disagree. There are many natural scientists, and especially physicists, who continue to reject the notion that the disciplines concerned with social and cultural criticism can have anything to contribute, except perhaps peripherally, to their research. Still less are they receptive to the idea that the very foundations of their worldview must be revised or rebuilt in the light of such criticism. Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in eternal'' physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the objective’’ procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.
I recently had occasion to hang out in the waiting area of St Joseph Hospital in Asheville for a few hours. I was free to walk many of the corridors and rest in many of the waiting areas along with everyone else. It was early morning but it was obvious that the hospital functioned fully 24/7.
A person can walk the corridors of any big city hospital and observe the effectiveness of human rationality in action. One can also visit the UN building in NYC or read the morning papers and observe just how ineffective, frustrating and disappointing human rationality can be. Why does human reason perform so well in some matters and so poorly in others?
We live in two very different worlds; a world of technical and technological order and clarity, and a world of personal and social disorder and confusion. We are increasingly able to solve problems in one domain and increasingly endangered by our inability to solve problems in the other.
Normal science is successful primarily because it is a domain of knowledge controlled by paradigms. The paradigm defines the standards, principles and methods of the discipline. It is not apparent to the laity but science moves forward in small incremental steps. Science seldom seeks and almost never produces major novelties.
Science solves puzzles. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.
Science uses instrumental rationality to solve puzzles. Instrumental rationality is a systematic process for reflecting upon the best action to take to reach an established end. The obvious question becomes ‘what mode of rationality is available for determining ends?’ Instrumental rationality appears to be of little use in determining such matters as “good” and “right”.
There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved using deductive and inductive reasoning.
Dialectical reasoning requires the ability to slip quickly between contradictory lines of reasoning. One needs skill to develop a synthesis of one point of view with another. Where technical matters are generally confined to only one well understood frame of reference real life problems become multi-dimensional totalities.
When we think dialectically we are guided by principles not by procedures. Real life problems span multiple categories and academic disciplines. We need point-counter-point argumentation, we need emancipatory reasoning to resolve dialectical problems. We need critical thinking skills and attitudes to resolve real life problems.
How to build the atomic bomb is a technical problem. Whether to build the bomb or what to do with it after it is built is a real life problem.
The critically self-conscious learner is a person who has developed a passion for rational solutions to problematic ends. Instrumental rationality is designed to solve problems of means when the end is clear. Normal science, the science of means, is guided and controlled by paradigms. Paradigms are single dimensional structures that insure that means solutions do not stray from the straight and narrow.
Such systems are designed for puzzle solutions that are perfectly acceptable for single dimensional problems. The problematic situation that presents itself is just how to approach the determination of ends when such matters are mostly multi-dimensional without paradigms and generally demanding the agreement of two or more reflective agents. There are no paradigms for multi-dimensional problems.
Instrumental rationality is not a method suitable for developing ends. Dialectical rationality is the only mode of reasoning suitable for arriving at satisfactory ends.
In a criminal jury trial each juror ideally begins hearing the case as a mental blank slate. The witnesses engage in a controlled and guided dialogue wherein each witness communicates to the jury their particular truth regarding the matter under consideration. Each juror modifies his or her blank slate as the witness’s parade through; each providing his or her view of the truth. A dialogue takes place for the benefit of the juror who is not a member of the dialogue.
Each juror is required to reason dialectically. Dialectical reasoning is a process wherein the opinion of the juror is molded and remolded based upon the truths presented. The blank slate becomes slate A after witness A and then becomes slate A-B after witness B and then becomes slate A-B-C, etc.
At the end of the trial the jurors assemble in isolation to determine a verdict. Generally the members are polled to determine if all agree upon the truth of the case. If one or more jurors dissent from the others a new dialogue must take place. The jurors begin a dialogue in an attempt to reach a unanimous decision.
In this stage each juror is engaged in communication in dialogue while simultaneously each juror is engaged in a rational dialectic.
A jury trial might be a useful example of a problem engaged by many reflective agents with a multiplicity
of frames of reference. In such a situation the jury must utilize communicative techniques to enter into a dialogue wherein there is a constant dialectic until a unanimous solution is reached or deadlock prevails.
Communicating by dialogue together with reasoning dialectically is a technique for attempting to solve multi-dimensional 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 multi-dimensional 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-dimensional.
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; from a thesis and a contrasting thesis, a synthesis is constructed that takes into consideration both proposals. From this synthesis, a new thesis has developed.
When we are dealing with single dimensional problems well circumscribed by paradigms the personal biases of the subject are of small concern. In multi-dimensional problems, without the advantage of paradigms, the biases of the problem solvers become a serious source of error. One important task of dialogue is to illuminate these prejudices. These biases may be quite subtle and often out of the consciousness of the participant holding them.
Dialogic, the combination of dialogue and dialectic, is the only form of rationalization available for multilogical problems. Induction and deduction are aspects of the act of dialogic but are not sufficient alone for this needed communication form of rationalization.
Our schools have decided that our children should learn to be critical thinkers. I agree with their judgement. This disciplined form of thought is important to each child and is vitally important to our society. I have attempted to relay to you my sense of the importance of critical thinking in the hope that you may share that judgement and lend your support to the school system in this vital matter.
coberst, you originally posted the above post (#23) at another website in December 2005. Here: http://www.shadowsinthecave.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1558&sid=417693f8a27667c95e3f712006eb2279
Your habit of quoting your old writings is very off-putting. The least you can do (for the sake of intellectual honesty) is let us know that you just cut and pasted the thing from elsewhere, and that it’s not composed just now by you in response to other replies in this thread.
To be totally accurate, he originally put it online here. We’re only good enough for the third repost. It’s a movie about a three legged onion or something.
I think that self-help books are a scam to give people practice in obfuscating issues enough to allow them to get away with doing whatever it was they were trying to help with in the first place. That’s what I think, Coberst.
Actually, I don’t think he’s making any particular effort to pretend he’s responding to us as individuals.
It seems to me that there are three basic subjects for discourse, people, things, and ideas. Try focusing the intellect upon ideas and you might discover how invigorating that can be.
What, only three basic subjects? Um… aren’t you forgetting about the fourth one: SEX. It has a lot in common with what the OP is looking for: “invigorating” discourse.
Because, you see,coberst— just like sex, discourse is better when you’re not just wanking.
Now, if you have something serious to say, something that actually leads to an invigorating conclusion… we’d love to hear it.
I think you’re right.
Invigorating or not, the world doesn’t go well when you ignore it to swim in your own mind, hiding.
Perhaps you really have just smoked too much weed, but if you’re trying for a call for help your current course isn’t the way to get people to realise that. You can read all the self-help books you want, but in the end you’re going to have to be the one to change. You’re not going to be able to convert the rest of the world into being nice happy people who will stop scaring you.