Old Wisdom, Young Foolinsness.

Just recently I've been watching the waves wash in and out - during the past few days the tides were very high - I guess that's what brought Chuck's postings into view. The phases of the moon and so on. Certainly the tides have subsided again. I'm not a mariner, but from a landlubber's perspective I really like those wild seas. I'm sure it's not so much fun to be riding on them.

footnote:
a) I went to the pub today
b) I was speaking literally, the real physical world, as well as metaphorically.

apologies for the interruption ... carry on.

never a leader,
all of one swift

empty
dancing        mind.

They arc and loop & then
their flight is done.
they settle down.

[Laird]

maybe deeper thinking about these kids and the modern education system is one requirement to get closer to truth in this topic.

Oh, I agree - there is plenty to think and discuss about the modern education system. I don't think I'm educated enough to have that discussion publicly though.

I really hope you’re joking?
I think that your faith in ‘education’ is misplaced. I truly think nowadays it’s more like ‘indoctrination’

It was a little bit playful, much like your joke a day or two back (which I missed).

That said, the whole question of "meaningful education versus indoctrination" is one which I don't think I have a good enough understanding of to discuss/debate publicly.
As canvassed above, where we don't have enough information or have not thought carefully enough about an issue, it is perhaps most prudent not to express a firm opinion (although if the issue is consequential enough and our intuitions strong enough, we might see fit to anyway)

Synchronously:

My sister is engaged in further studies at the moment, and in the process of soliciting my comment on a brief essay she had been tasked to write, she clued me in to a great example of exactly why I consider myself to be "uneducated about (modern) education". Her essay in part dealt with theories of learning, in particular "constructivist" theories of learning/development. After engaging with her essay and doing some independent research, I have come to understand that although "constructivism" is but one theory of learning/development, there are different varieties of "constructivism" itself, most notably Piaget's cognitive constructivism and Vygotsky's social constructivism.

In brief, it seems that Piaget's ideas were more focussed on an individual's independent learning based on discrete cognitive stages of development, including the concept that new knowledge is either "accommodated" or "assimilated" by the learner / developing individual, whereas Vygotsky's ideas emphasised learning from "more knowledgeable others" (MKOs) in a zone of proximal development. It also seems that constructivism in general (i.e., supported by both Piaget and Vygotsky) is ‘an approach to learning that holds that people actively construct or make their own knowledge and that reality is determined by the experiences of the learner’.

Without even knowing of the existence of constructivism as a theory, let alone its varieties and alternatives, how could one hope to be considered sufficiently "educated about (modern) education" to have a public discussion about it?

Without even knowing of the existence of constructivism as a theory, let alone its varieties and alternatives, how could one hope to be considered sufficiently "educated about (modern) education" to have a public discussion about it?

I get the sense that you’re falling into what I see as the ‘Can’t see the wood for the trees’ trap. 

We can get so theoretical or so attached to a concept that we can no longer take a simple opinion as expressed by an honest individual and really recognise any deep truth that it may contain. 

The video that started this thread was probably one such example. That you didn’t ‘like’ it, for whatever reason, is definitely a sign (to me) of a different type of thinking from my own.

Thinking on my previous post, a thought came to me which be interesting to some. 

I remember watching two films, one everyone will know, the other far less. Forrest Gump and Being There. They both are interesting movies about simple minded men that in some aspects might be seen as out of step with the vast majority of their fellow humans. 

Would Forrest know anything of theoretical teaching or advanced physics? No, of course not. Yet he was successful in his life. I think he achieved this ‘success’ by having the basic values of integrity, honesty and basic uncorrupted ‘goodness’ that is difficult to define but easily felt while watching the film. You can say that ‘it’s only a film’ but I don’t think its ‘message’ should be so easily dismissed. I realise that this may be wishful thinking on my part.

What I’m trying to say is that there may be other ways of moving forward that doesn’t only mean using our ‘advanced’ intellect. I think many creative individuals (including film makers)that are less valued by Science can often somehow point to truths that many of us blast past because we are not willing to see the value what we are being told outside ‘papers’ ‘essays’ and other accepted means of delivery. 

I think it might be extremely foolish to always value lower, the word of experienced, educated individuals over theoretical thinking, especially where there is no reason to suspect the honesty/integrity of that individual.

That you didn’t ‘like’ it, for whatever reason, is definitely a sign (to me) of a different type of thinking from my own.

Personally, I'm surprised you take 'likes' so ponderously seriously. To me they are part of the fluff of modern social media,  which are leading to mental health issues in younger people who are desperate to win the approval of others. Many of us grew up in a world where we just talked to one another, there is something very worrying about the way technology has changed the lives of people growing up in this world. I have no way of picturing a typical childhood nowadays, and comparing it with my own. It is a chasm that is hard to bridge.

Someone once asked me what one change I would make to the world to make it a better place. I said I'd uninvent electricity.

Personally, I'm surprised you take 'likes' so ponderously seriously.

I’m surprised that you seem to be seeing ‘likes’ on only one level. I nearly included a sentence saying that it may seem that I am placing a lot of superficial value on likes, but I think their application or withholding can point deeper than merely superficial. Laird is not a person who awards or does not award posts on a whim. I’m not saying that it’s accurate, but it’s often a pointer. 

If I really was desperate for likes, don’t you think I’d keep quiet about the things that seem to be some of the most emotional topics? While I couldn’t really give a toss about likes on one level, it is nice to at least see some sort of agreement with my posts on another, the fact is, I sometimes am surprised, but frequently not. 

Someone once asked me what one change I would make to the world to make it a better place. I said I'd uninvent electricity.

Yes, it would have been interesting to see what effect that may have had. I for one, am rather pleased that it was discovered when it was. It would have been putting back the inevitable imo.

Thinking on my previous post, a thought came to me which be interesting to some. 

What I’m trying to say is that there may be other ways of moving forward that doesn’t only mean using our ‘advanced’ intellect. I think many creative individuals (including film makers)that are less valued by Science can often somehow point to truths that many of us blast past because we are not willing to see the value what we are being told outside ‘papers’ ‘essays’ and other accepted means of delivery. 

Old wisdom, in older times, lacked the methodology of modern science.  Data gathering, instrument recording, pattern analysis and statistical tools yield functional advantages that cannot be ignored.  They are wicked boring, but must be learned and utilized to increase productivity.   They are not foolish, but it is foolish to see these tasks as the whole picture and that anything replaces personal experience.

Old wisdom active now - as holistic thinking - is as effective as ever.  Old fashion creative insights should stand on the well-formed data.  We live in an age were there is over-flowing data and few deep thinkers than get heard.  

I am sympathetic to your older ecologist in the opening video.  Just like I would be, for a greying sports star.  Great intentions, but the game is changing.  On the other hand, he can be judged as noble, fighting for ecology in a time where it's importance is just dawning on the general public.  Simple observation of the global environment supports the "truth" of climate change.  Maybe it was deep thinking 50 years ago.  Now -- it is an problem, getting right in our faces.

We need the peer-reviews as the academics fight it out.  We need to review their output skeptically.  Give the old guard their due.  And then get about understanding reality the best we can.

We need the peer-reviews as the academics fight it out.  We need to review their output skeptically.  Give the old guard their due.  And then get about understanding reality the best we can.

My feeling is that Balance is way off. 

I think some/a lot of Science has become too corrupted, with money being used to influence their outcome. It won’t be obvious, but more subtle. I have really seen how easily brainwashed people 
can be in this past year. It’s scary! 

Some clues I’m seeing. An Oxford graduate son of a friend saying that he felt his degree was mainly about past thinking, hardly any face to face discussion with his peers, my daughter studying Psychology says it’s all about papers. Peer reviews seem to be the be all and end all. If this is indeed the case, look at what Ioannidis has to say about them.

I think honesty and integrity is key. However, I know very honest, decent people that are displaying signs of brainwashing, so where does that leave us?

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-p...esentation

I may be way off, but this is my sense.

[Laird]

I get the sense that you’re falling into what I see as the ‘Can’t see the wood for the trees’ trap.

OK. And is it possible that you're falling into the "Whatever feels good is true" trap?

We can get so theoretical or so attached to a concept that we can no longer take a simple opinion as expressed by an honest individual and really recognise any deep truth that it may contain.

OK. Can't individuals be "honest but wrong" though?

The video that started this thread was probably one such example. That you didn’t ‘like’ it, for whatever reason, is definitely a sign (to me) of a different type of thinking from my own.

I've already explained why I didn't "like" it. The above might help further explain.

BTW, on the point-counter-point on "likes", I do think that they can be used meaningfully. Among other uses, they convey sentiments which help to establish what people think and (are willing to) support. I do not always follow strict principles in offering them though. In particular, I sometimes withhold them even when I think a post makes a good point, simply because - not necessarily for any consistent reason - I just don't want to engage on any level at the time other than as a(n anonymous) reader.

What I’m trying to say is that there may be other ways of moving forward that doesn’t only mean using our ‘advanced’ intellect.

Sure. Simple intuition can be very powerful; personal observation and experience of the forest count for a lot - but if I'm getting into a plane, I want it to be flown by a pilot who is formally trained and qualified, in all of the advanced complexity that that entails. Maybe that makes him/her indoctrinated in flying? If so, I'd rather an indoctrinated pilot than a fatal crash.

Sure. Simple intuition can be very powerful; personal observation and experience of the forest count for a lot - but if I'm getting into a plane, I want it to be flown by a pilot who is formally trained and qualified, in all of the advanced complexity that that entails. Maybe that makes him/her indoctrinated in flying? If so, I'd rather an indoctrinated pilot than a fatal crash.

Funny you using that as an example. In my opinion flying requires a mixture of intellect and intuition to achieve the best results from a pilot. A brain the size of a planet isn’t ideal.