Wow, what emotional intensity, John! Something must have upset you very
much. Having been away for a while, I may have missed the specific
"scientific error" you are referring to -- could you please share which
issue touched a hot button with you.
Scientific discovery, John, is usually a messy, albeit an enjoyable
process. Mistakes need to happen so that we can learn. The tone of your
message seems to indicate a low tolerance for such mistakes, and that, in
my opinion, is antithetical to learning. Your assumptions about knowing
or discovering truth, the TRUTH, is intimidating. It can create fear and
silence.
I don't agree with all that's being said in these threads of
conversations...and sometimes I do think logical fallacies are at work.
But it's amazing how much I learn from such fallacies (and it's only my
belief that they are fallacies). Though I am a social scientist, I've
been involved in learning about neurological research at the molecular
level to understand learning. In this process of discovery I have learned
that the biological sciences are challenging almost all major theories
about life. If that is the case (and I'm already beyond my level of
expertise), is it not important to allow for more tolerance in drawing
scientific conclusions?
Also, your example about the water (as an illustration of faulty
reasoning) doesn't do much for me. Had the student told his audience
that it is water (instead of using an unfamiliar scientific term to the
layman), I'm sure the response would have been different.
John, your style of communicating creates an additional level of
complexity. Since you have already asserted the possibility that someone
will judge your comment as a "tyranny of experts" and that future
contributions by you maybe perceived as "too picky or too prickly," you
have attempted to manipulate responses to your thoughts. And you have
created for yourself a "safety zone" where any disagreement with your
thinking can be dismissed as "see, I knew they didn't want to hear me."
That's a difficult starting point for any learning.
One final comment. Within your message I saw a struggle that I, too,
have. Neither the relativism of post-modernism nor the absolutes of
modern science (where the observer can be and should be objective) offer
me a framework through which I can understand learning and knowledge.
Some emerging theories seem to embrace paradoxes more openly...perhaps
that consciousness creates time and matter. If so, what would that do to
our logic? to our present reasoning? to our perceived fallacies?
Thank you for inspiring me to write. And I cannot help myself but to
quote a favorite writer of mine who seems to have said something about
everything. These are my translations...enjoy! Michael.
"Men show their characters in nothing more clearly than in what they think
laughable."
"We know accurately only when we know little; with knowledge doubt
increases."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Michael T. Schumacher, Ph.D.
mts@inxpress.net <mailto:mts@inxpress.net>
--"Michael T. Schumacher" <mts@inxpress.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>