|
Author
|
Topic: Theory of Knowledge Concepts
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 03. October 2002 11:07
I would like to introduce for discussion the concepts or principles underlying what I call ‘theory of knowledge’. [This is not a discussion of how the theory of knowledge would apply to evolutionary theory.] The theory of knowledge is based on the following two basic principles:
1. The validity (truth) of human knowledge, beliefs etc. depends on the human behaviors used to determine validity.
2. The validity of human knowledge, beliefs etc. can be changed by changing the human behaviors used to determine validity.
The theory of knowledge, as defined here contrasts/conflicts with what might be called ‘theory of truth’ which is based on the principle:
1. There exists in the universe some form of truth or validity which can be observed and measured.
Viewed in terms of the ‘theory of truth’, science might be characterized as ‘a search for truth’. Viewed in terms of the ‘theory of knowledge’, science is a process for ‘validating knowledge’.
As a practical matter, the theory of knowledge suggests that to ‘achieve a higher degree of truth or validity’ we analyze and modify human behavior. The ‘theory of truth’ perspective, by contrast, would suggest that achieving a higher degree of truth is a matter of developing ‘better measurement techniques and concepts’.
On the surface, the theory of knowledge and the theory of truth would appear to be complimentary. In every day practice, we sometimes view science in terms of a search for truth( a search for the true laws of nature), and sometimes we view science in terms of the human behaviors associated with science.
IMO, the these concepts (whether viewed as contrasting or complimentary) are critical in understanding not only scientific knowledge, but also other types of knowledge and beliefs.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 04. October 2002 10:58
Combining the ‘theory of knowledge’ principles with the ‘human creative intelligence as group or social processing’ concept, provides an interesting perspective on the role of science and the scientific paradigm in human evolution. Viewed in terms of ‘intelligence as a social process’, the scientific paradigm can be identified as one of the tools, devises or processes which increased the effectiveness and efficiency of human creative intelligence. The two theory of knowledge principles explain/describe how the scientific paradigm evolved and continues to evolve/devolve.
The suggestion that 1)the scientific paradigm evolved (and continues to evolve/devolve) and 2)is a component of the broader ongoing evolution of human creative intelligence raises at least three basic questions:
1. Does the evolution of the scientific paradigm fit the general evolutionary paradigm?
2. What does the evolution of the scientific paradigm tell us about evolution?
3. What does the evolution of the scientific paradigm tell us about science?
DOES THE EVOLUTION OF SCIENCE FIT THE EVOLUTIONARY PARADIGM?
For the sake of discussion here, the evolutionary paradigm will be defined as involving 1)a purposeful or functional ‘result which increases the likelihood of survival’ 2)which can be preserved over time, and is produced by the interaction of 3)variance producing processes, and 4)selection processes. [This is a general definition of evolution which is not limited to either ‘genetic evolution’ or ‘Darwinian evolution’.] It is also useful to include in the definition of the evolutionary paradigm the requirement that 5)evolutionary processes operate on some previously existing purposeful or functional result.
It is obvious that processes and mechanisms exist for preserving the scientific paradigm over time(human memory and in recent times written records). It is also fairly obvious that processes and mechanisms exist to generate variations on the behaviors making up the scientific paradigm. At the very least, new behaviors are generated to adjust for advances in technology. Criteria 2 and 3 would therefore appear to be satisfied.
Does the scientific paradigm have a purpose or function which increases the likelihood of survival? Science clearly has a purpose or function. The interesting question is "What is the purpose or function that ‘drove’ the evolution of the scientific paradigm?" The ‘search for truth’ or the ‘search for knowledge’ might at times be described as the purpose of science, but such a goal doesn’t seem to explain why science developed in the first place. The ‘search for solutions to practical survival problems’ would seem a more appropriate description of the purpose of science since it is a goal which suggests science has a survival value. No matter how the goal of science is defined, it clearly has a goal or purpose and thus satisfies the first criteria listed above.
The next, and possibly the key criteria to be satisfied is the existence of selection processes. The evolution of the scientific paradigm clearly does not involve any direct, phenotype effect, or Darwinian natural selection. The choice or selection of behaviors to be included in or excluded from the scientific paradigm does not (usually) involves either death or differential reproduction. There are, however, selection processes at work in forming and modifying the scientific paradigm. The selection processes at work on the scientific paradigm can be identified as ‘a set of decisions by individuals of the general form ‘Is procedure or behavior A better or worse than procedure B?’. [Decision making as evolutionary selection is in itself a subject which could be discussed in some detail.] There is thus an indirect selection process operating on the scientific paradigm and thus criteria 4 above is satisfied.
Phenomena such as Stonehenge in England suggest that ‘science’ or at least engineering applications evolved before the evolution of written records. The ‘starting point behaviors’ for the evolution of scientific behavior or the scientific paradigm must be largely a matter of speculation. My personal speculation is that science evolved from religion. Despite conflicts in the last few centuries, science and religion appear to have been closely aligned in the more distant past. If you look at logical structure of science and religion they are surprisingly similar. Science can be described as a set of theories which have survival value. Religion can be described as a sets of beliefs which survival value. Both theories and beliefs are continually being modified by human decision making. Both give rise to conflicts between ‘ideas based on authoritative assertions’ and ‘ideas based on compatibility with observed facts’. The only fundamental differences between science and religion, IMO, are the degree to which rules have been formalized, the treatment of the unknown and unknowable. At the very least, there as possible and reasonable explanations for the ‘starting point for science’ and thus criteria 5 appears to be satisfied.
WHAT DOES THE EVOLUTION OF SCIENCE TELL US ABOUT EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES?
It is argued and widely believed that ‘humanness’ and thus the ‘evolution of humanness’ can be explained by the genetic differences and the processes which produced the genetic differences between man and apes. When we look the evolution of science, we see ‘evolutionary processes’ that 1)impact what we define as humanness, and 2)which are largely independent of genetic change mechanisms. The analysis of the evolution of science thus suggests that either 1)the definition of evolutionary change needs to be expanded, or 2)the claims of ‘what can be changed’ by ‘genetic evolution alone’ need to be narrowed and verified.
The evolution of science suggests (this is obviously not a new suggestion) that there are phenomena other than genetic change which are appropriate subjects for analyzing evolutionary change processes. Evolution of science even suggests that non-genetic evolution may be easier to formally analyze than genetic evolution.
Third, the evolution of science suggests that selection in evolutionary processes can take forms other than direct, phenotype effect, or Darwinian natural selection. As has been discussed elsewhere, measures of the forces of selection in genetic change strongly suggests that genetic evolution involves selection other than direct or natural selection. The analysis of the evolution of science provides a useful method of studying indirect selection.
Finally, the evolution of science demonstrates that evolutionary processes produce ‘non-optimal’ forms and evolutionary are not uni-directional. It is sometimes easy to forget that the existence of change processes suggests both that there will be ‘intermediate non-optimal forms’ and ‘change processes won’t always move in the direction of increasing survival values’.
WHAT DOES THE EVOLUTION OF SCIENCE TELL US ABOUT SCIENCE?
First, science as a form of human behavior appears to have a very long history. It can therefore be dangerous to interpret the scientific paradigm in terms of practices in the last 20, 50, 100 or 500 years.
Second, the evolution of the scientific paradigm suggests that the paradigm is still involving and that the potential exists to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the paradigm. Analysis also suggests that there are specific procedures which could be used to improve the paradigm.
Finally, the evolution of the scientific paradigm suggests the paradigm has at time ‘devolved’ rather than evolved, and a pattern of deterioration could recur.
SUMMARY
IMO, theory of knowledge and human intelligence as social processing, are interesting concepts which provide some interesting perspectives on a number of different issues. There is a strong human tendency in science and elsewhere, to suggest that there is only one right way view a problem or issue. When that one permitted perspective fails we then conclude the problem is not solvable. At the very least, theory of knowledge and human intelligence as a social process provides an opportunity to view the world from a different point of view.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic