Dear Organlearners,
John Gunkler <jgunkler@sprintmail.com> writes:
>In other words, they are taught deductively how to predict
>symptoms from illnesses -- then have to spend their lives
>inducing illnesses from symptoms. Why?
>
>I suspect this is another of life's questions to which I'll never
>have the answer -- like, how does my wife know things about
>me that I don't? (and many others.)
Greetings John,
Allow me a guess -- your wife is a very creative person!
I cannot change your words. If I had to write your sentence above, it
would have been: "....they are INSTRUCTED deductively how to predict
symptoms from illnesses ...."
When person A instructs person B, B has to perform according to the
specifications set out by A in advance. But when A teaches person B, B has
to create and then evaluate his/her own specifications of performance
while pursuing those advancing specifications. If A instructs B, B can
only conform when he/she has to satisfy A. But if A teaches B, B has to
learn creatively all the way for personal satisfaction. Instruction
supplies form into which content has to be deformed to fit. Teaching
guides the continual growth of content and its transformation into form.
Instruction has temporal benefits. But teaching benefits persistent
learning.
Deduction is to a large extend the logical reasoning from more complex
parts to less complex parts. The "logical complexity" involves class
qualifiers and predicate qualifiers. Deductive reasoning for class
qualifiers is from the general to the specific. Deductive reasoining for
prediciate qualifiers is from the premises (note plural) to the conclusion
(note singular). Deduction and Proof Theory go hand in hand. Deduction in
logics corresponds to analysis in chemistry.
Since we have discussed in previous contributions the inference rule Modus
Ponens, let us use it as an example to get an idea what deduction is.
Modus Ponens is defined by: Given p (is true) and IMPLY(p,q) (is true),
conclude q (is true) the implication IMPLY(p,q) (which is often also
written as pIMPLYq) is evidently more complex than p and q.
What is often not realised because of lack of experience in formalising
deductions in logic is that the premiss p is usually more complex than the
conclusion q. For example, logical reasoning has to begin with the axioms
to proceed towards theorems. Each of the axioms has already a certain
degree of complexity. Even the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) on any
proposition p, predicated with a handle q to make it more effective, is
more complex than the first theorems to be derived from it. Observe that
complexity in the predicated LEM as it has been formulated
by Frege as
pIMPLY(qIMPLYp)
or by Rosser as
(pANDq)IMPLYp
or by Hilbert as
pIMPLY(pORq)
Induction is to a large extend the logical reasoning from less complex
parts to more complex parts. Inductive reasoning is from the specific to
the general and from conlusions (note plural) to a premiss(note singular).
Induction and Model theory go hand in hand. Induction in logic corresponds
to synthesis in chemistry.
The problem with both deduction and induction is that they do not form a
complementary dual. This can easily be seen in the prefixes by which their
names are formed: DE-duction and IN-duction. A duct is a channel which
limits the free flowing of water. Similarly DEductive channel tends to
force logical reasoning into analysis while the INductive channel tends to
force logical reasoning into syntheses. What is also needed, is a lateral
flow of thoughts so that reasoning can meander as fitness landscapes (the
free energy topography of life) requires. The great American philosopher C
S Peirce (father of pragmatism) was probably the first to realise this. If
my memory serves me correctly, he called it abduction (or is it
adduction?). About a century later the thinker E de Bono made lateral
thinking his personal trademark with great success.
What do I mean that deduction and induction do not form a complementary
dual? Let us think metaphorically.
(1) Think mathematically in terms of a segment of a curve. They are each
simply a region joining one of the two end points of the segment of
logical reasoning. Between these two regions joining the endpoints there
is a large unconnected space in which the meandering of logical thoughts
also can happen.
(2) Think chemically in terms of chemical reactions. They are simply the
two elementary reactions
addition: A + B = AB
elimination: AB = A + B
Many reactions have to make use of both simultaneously in which case
it is called
substitution: AB + C = AC + B
(3) Think biologically in terms of organisms. The two chief classes of
organisms are the plant kindom and the animal kingdom. But what about
virusses, organelles (nucleus, Golgi, mitochondria, ...) or microorganisms
like bacteria (the kingdom Monera)? Furthermore, what about biological
organisations (organons) such as the symbiotic relationships between
virusses, bacteria, plants and animals to form an ecological niche?
(4) Think linguistically in terms of sentences. Deduction, induction,
abduction and all other sorts of ductions all belong to declarative logic
-- the logic of sentences known as statements. We do not only declare
statements. Our sentences are also questions begging for answers and
commands urging for results. There are also form (logic) in the way which
we validly string questions or commands. In other words, we also employ
interrogative logic for questions and imperative logic for commands
whenever we communicate creatively.
Unfortunately, about 99.9% of all research into logic has gone into
declarative logic (proof theory and model theory, sharp and fuzzy, first
and higher order, etc.). The other 0.1% of research indicates that
interrogative and imperative logic are far more complex than declarative
logic, so complex that it is still only possible to scratch the surface of
logical thinking. We can teach better declarative thinking because there
is some research to back us up, although such declarative teaching is
seldom improved. But how can we teach better interrogative and imperative
thinking when there is almost no research to rely upon? The only thing
which we can do, is to encourages learners to learn each self how to think
questioningly and commandingly -- to interrogate and imperiate
himself/herself before questioning and commanding other people -- the LO
discipline which Peter Senge calls Personal Mastery.
When I think logically in terms of the metaphors above and many more, I
call it "deep logic" to distinguish it from the logic which other people
usually have in mind. Post modernists want to scrap logic because they
believe it has failed. I believe that simplistic logic has failed the
complexity of reality. Simple deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning
have failed. However, since time immemorial until the end of this
dispensation all the reasoning of all humans contain content and form.
Should we study the form of reasoning to uncover values such as truth and
ethics from it, this form will meander between complete chaos and complete
order so as to become more complex. There is absolutely no doubt in my
mind about this.
One of the differences, for me, between an organisation and a Learning
Organisation is that the members of any LO share "deep logic" when they
communicate with each other through statements, questions and commands.
When I think of communication, it involves all the facets (inanimate and
alive, material and abstract, natural and cultural) of the LO. In other
words, the fifth discipline Systems Thinking of LOs should also include
"deep logical" thinking.
John, to summarise all what I have said. Those people who are invloved
with teaching, whether they administrate or administer it, should stop
confusing teaching with training or newer fads like knowledge transfer.
Training cares little for learning and calls all negative results
failures. Teaching focus on learning, endeavouring to admonish every
creative event into successful learning.
Best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>