John Gunkler wrote:
>I cannot help be reminded of
>Senge's "Ladder of Inference" which makes some (I believe) useful
>distinctions among concepts:
>
>Actions
>Beliefs
>Conclusions
>Assumptions
>Meanings
>Selected Data
>Experiences/Observable "Data"
...snip...
>Much of what I read in this discussion about "beliefs" I interpret to be
>actually about "assumptions." For example, when Winfried Dressler >writes:
>
>>The foundation of logic (law of identity, law of contradiction, law of
>>excluded third for example) are beliefs
>
>this goes counter to what I was taught in my logic and mathematics
>classes. We referred to the unexamined starting points as "assumptions."
Thank you, John, for bringing in the ladder of inference. You are right,
the foundations of logic can also (!) be seen on the stage of assumptions.
This requires to question the "evidence"-status which is (for me) a signal
to assume a belief.
The ladder provides a good example for my thesis:
>>Belief is prior to any thinking.
>>But thinking challenges belief in order to find foundation on more
>>fundamental belief if necessary.
Although this may be questioned as well, I take "Thinking" for an action.
As such, it is always based on belief and the ladder below. But the
thinking process may provide new data, new selection, new meaning...new
belief and finaly new thinking. The new, more fundamental belief gives
order to a bigger database of experience.
My point was, that the belief "conflicts are real" should be brought down
to the stage of assumption, that may not be valid, before taking action on
this belief. The opposite assumption "conflicts are not real" will lead to
a totally different action - trying to solve the conflict instead of
winning it. It is also much more fruitful in motivating data collection
and questioning what is found on each step of the ladder of inference in
order to build new, satisfying solutions - coherent and consistent. This
is, in my eyes, why physics was so successful: there are no physics of
school A, physics of school B, physics of Boston, physics of Chicago.
Although there are still different opinions on various topics, physicists
believe (not only assume, they take act ion on this!) that "conflicts do
not exist in nature".
Thank you for giving me the chance to clarify this a bit more (also for
myself).
Liebe Gruesse
Winfried
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>