Industrial Revolution: The Tipping point?

[coberst]

Industrial Revolution: The Tipping point?

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 only using deductive and inductive reasoning.

Dialectical reasoning methods require 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 can we become intellectually sophisticated enough to survive our own technological success?

Can our civilization survive much longer if our citizens fail to become more intellectually sophisticated? Presently it is apparent to me that few citizens have any idea of the problems that we face. If the citizens do not comprehend what is going on they certainly will be unwilling to make the sacrifices required.

I suspect that we have already past the tipping point. The tipping point is that situation in history, if past, cannot be recovered. There is a tipping point in the human body such that if reached the immune system in the body cannot recover and eventually heal the body.

I suspect that the human species tipping point might have been the Industrial Revolution.

They “tranquilize themselves with the trivial”.—Kierkegaard

[Il Dante]

First, great essay. I strongly agree that most people live their lives in cruise control. Too often we live in auto-pilot.

Second, regarding the following quote:



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.


I may be misunderstanding you, but I think you are saying that we need to apply rationality and critical thinking to daily life to solve those problems rather than only using rationality and critical thinking in the realm of science.

My response would be: the problem with "critical thinking" is that it rests upon premises. If the premises are faulty, the whole edifice built upon them is unreliable. This is true both in natural science and in our philosophy of life. I am a cynic with respect to philosophy and "reason" because ultimately we cannot get away from certain basic assumptions which are either unproven or unprovable. More often than not, they are both.

These assumptions include: my senses are reliable and are not tricking me (i.e. I am not a brain in a tube or plugged into the matrix); there is a spiritual realm; or, there is not a spiritual realm; materiality is all there is; or materiality is not all there is.

All of these are simply assumptions, basic postulates—or, to use another term, they are beliefs. They are neither provable nor disprovable. And your whole system of making sense of the world will be determined by which of these postulates you subscribe to. Thus there is no getting away from faith.

[coberst]

First, great essay. I strongly agree that most people live their lives in cruise control. Too often we live in auto-pilot.

Second, regarding the following quote:



I may be misunderstanding you, but I think you are saying that we need to apply rationality and critical thinking to daily life to solve those problems rather than only using rationality and critical thinking in the realm of science.

My response would be: the problem with "critical thinking" is that it rests upon premises. If the premises are faulty, the whole edifice built upon them is unreliable. This is true both in natural science and in our philosophy of life. I am a cynic with respect to philosophy and "reason" because ultimately we cannot get away from certain basic assumptions which are either unproven or unprovable. More often than not, they are both.

These assumptions include: my senses are reliable and are not tricking me (i.e. I am not a brain in a tube or plugged into the matrix); there is a spiritual realm; or, there is not a spiritual realm; materiality is all there is; or materiality is not all there is.

All of these are simply assumptions, basic postulates—or, to use another term, they are beliefs. They are neither provable nor disprovable. And your whole system of making sense of the world will be determined by which of these postulates you subscribe to. Thus there is no getting away from faith.

The first step toward solving our problems is to learn CT (Critical Thinking).

CT is an acronym for Critical Thinking. Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.

Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic principles of reasoning. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.

The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.

Most decisions we have to make are judgment calls. A judgment call is made when we must make a decision when there is no “true” or “false” answers. When we make a judgment call our decision is bad, good, or better.

Many factors are involved: there are the available facts, assumptions, skills, knowledge, and especially personal experience and attitude. I think that the two most important elements in the mix are personal experience and attitude.

When we study math we learn how to use various algorithms to facilitate our skill in dealing with quantities. If we never studied math we could deal with quantity on a primary level but our quantifying ability would be minimal. Likewise with making judgments; if we study the art and science of good judgment we can make better decisions and if we never study the art and science of judgment our decision ability will remain minimal.

I am convinced that a fundamental problem we have in this country (USA) is that our citizens have never learned the art and science of good judgment. Before the recent introduction of CT into our schools and colleges our young people have been taught primarily what to think and not how to think. All of us graduated with insufficient comprehension of the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for the formulation of good judgment. The result of this inability to make good judgment is evident and is dangerous.

I am primarily interested in the judgment that adults exercise in regard to public issues. Of course, any improvement in judgment generally will affect both personal and community matters.

To put the matter into a nut shell:
1. Normal men and women can significantly improve their ability to make judgments.
2. CT is the domain of knowledge that delineates the knowledge, skills, and intellectual character demanded for good judgment.
3. CT has been introduced into our schools and colleges slowly in the last two or three decades.
4. Few of today’s adults were ever taught CT.
5. I suspect that at least another two generations will pass before our society reaps significant rewards resulting from teaching CT to our children.
6. Can our democracy survive that long?
7. I think that every effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they need to study and learn CT on their own. I am not suggesting that adults find a teacher but I am suggesting that adults become self-actualizing learners.
8. I am convinced that learning the art and science of Critical Thinking is an important step toward becoming a better citizen in today’s democratic society.



Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking

“ABSTRACT: The ideal of critical thinking is a central one in Russell's philosophy, though this is not yet generally recognized in the literature on critical thinking. For Russell, the ideal is embedded in the fabric of philosophy, science, liberalism and rationality, and this paper reconstructs Russell's account, which is scattered throughout numerous papers and books. It appears that he has developed a rich conception, involving a complex set of skills, dispositions and attitudes, which together delineate a virtue which has both intellectual and moral aspects. It is a view which is rooted in Russell's epistemological conviction that knowledge is difficult but not impossible to attain, and in his ethical conviction that freedom and independence in inquiry are vital. Russell's account anticipates many of the insights to be found in the recent critical thinking literature, and his views on critical thinking are of enormous importance in understanding the nature of educational aims. Moreover, it is argued that Russell manages to avoid many of the objections which have been raised against recent accounts. With respect to impartiality, thinking for oneself, the importance of feelings and relational skills, the connection with action, and the problem of generalizability, Russell shows a deep understanding of problems and issues which have been at the forefront of recent debate.” http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm