> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 4:21 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Myers-Briggs > > On 5/5/06, The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I see a glaring logical error. The idea that *only* science can minimize > self-deception and identify non-existent causes cannot be falsified. > There > is no logical problem with arguing that science serves these purposes, but > to argue that only science can do so is just arguing from its own > conclusion. > > There's nothing particularly scientific about many of the means I > personally > use to minimize self-deception. Of course, I could just be kidding myself > about that. > > I think the mistake is to *compare* the value of intuition and scientific > thinking, rather than holding up some sort of Spock-like detachment and > objectivity as an ideal. Spock is fiction.
I've followed this thread for a bit, and I find that I organize things ub a manner that is significantly different from what I see here. In particular, I think the discussion of intuitive vs. scientific thinking misses how science actually works. Intuition is an important part of science. Great scientists, such as Feynman, had overwhelming intuitive ability. Feynman is legendary for his rough guesses being validated by experiments 10-20 years later. But, of course, he also had misses. I didn't get to talk with him, but Shelly Glashow (a theorist who won the Nobel Prize for his role in developing what is now called the Standard Theory said that he tended to have several intuitive ideas a day. Most of them he could dismiss himself. The rest, he brought up to colleagues, who usually found fatal flaws with them. About once a month, they were worth publishing. In my own case, I have worked very hard developing my own intuition. I have a "feel" for the transport of gammas and neutrons. My rough arm waving arguments usually get me in the ball park of the right answer. But, I know that my intuition is not _that_ good. When I check with more rigorous techniques, I find that my intuitive feel isn't always right. The data can still surprise me. When surprised, I work to recalibrate my intuitive feel to better match what is seen. IMHO, intuition works best when combined with rigor. In science at least, one can make an intuitive leap to get to the idea, but one is responsible for going back and connecting the dots to make sure one's intuition is correct. The distinction that I see is between linear thinking and disjunctive thinking. The former goes is a systematic fashion from A to B to C. The latter tends to jump from A to J, without stopping at B, C, or D. I am a disjunctive thinker, so I do this a lot. But, I always consider it my responsibility to be able to go back and show that the jump was valid. I may merge D & E together, I may use a proof that's on a totally different line, but I accept the responsibility to go back and validate my conclusion. Indeed, I'd argue that rigor is the best friend of true creativity. I had some interesting discussions with grad. students and professors in philosophy concerning our respective professions. There was consensus that it was far easier to BS in philosophy than in physics, but that it was also much harder to come up with something new and worthwhile. When I get stumped thinking about physics/engineering, I can always take some more data to help the process along. Philosophers can't. Testing my intuitive leaps against data significantly simplifies the process of separating the wheat from the chaff....and allows me to start seeing the patterns that are there. Going back to Feynman, his most famous quote on this subject is "science is the best way we have to not fool ourselves." By insisting that we accept as valid the model which best matches objective observations, we have an extremely strong antidote to fooling ourselves. For example, creationism is a bad model for biology. Standard biology provides a much better fit to observations. The real problem with using science ubiquitously is tied up with its virtue: it deliberately limits the questions it addresses. Science models observations, it does not form a basis for ethics, ontology, or epistemology. For example, there is no scientific basis for the argument that it is immoral to torture children for one's own pleasure. Even though we all agree on that, we cannot prove it scientifically. Finally, this leads us to the area of human thought and behavior. That is in a gray area where empirical observations can provide some understanding, but not full understanding. We don't know if someone isn't trying enough or if they just cannot do it...because we cannot get "inside" another person. Yet, we can see what techniques seem to work better than others. My wife knows she has ADHD, and has developed a number of coping mechanisms for it. Bags of tricks, like these, can be learned. But, when we use techniques, like this one or Myers-Briggs, we need to do it with the understanding that the validity of these techniques has some empirical basis, but is not really proven. For example, when I took it, it seemed right on several divisions, but it had me down as feeling on feeling/thinking. My family thought that was a hoot. So, I take evaluations, like this one, with a grain of salt. It can serve as a tool for starting a conversation, it can give one an "ah-ha" moment. But, a Meyer-Briggs score is not the same as a blood pressure measurement....it's predictions are not models that have been rigorously tested against objectively measured data. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
