Copernicus: Realization that we (Earth) are not the center of the universe (what we see on a clear night, and beyond) Newton: His laws of motion Perfecting the steam engine: Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics Electricity and Magnetism: Maxwell's equations and Einstein's special relativity (which reconciled Maxwells equations with Newton's laws of motion) Quantum mechanics: Rooting out the continuum (measurement is always grainy) The information age: Measuring information and building computers |
(Color seen by birds is magic. Birds see much that we must use scientific observation followed by sophisticated math before we realize just how magical is the knowledge of these "inferior" beings.) |
Vandana Shiva |
Meriam Webster Dictionary |
Each of these had to await sharpening
of human intellectual skills beyond those necessary for survival in prehistoric
worlds and cultures.
Synopses: Newton: He needed to be able to meaningly measure quantities that vary constantly--in a "state of flux." So he invented his "theory of fluxions." Today, we call it "calculus." Can't skip it completely: we need the elementary concepts. Heat Engines: We must recognize interactions of multiple variables, sort through them, sift the relevant from the irrelevant, relate them mathematically, and not fall into those traps that we call " gambler's fallacies." E & M: Vectors...and other multi-component measures. This is a really big step based on a rather simple (but difficult) concept. QM: The realization that our simple math isn't quite a perfect match to the real world.. Information and
computers: Bringing it all together: Human interaction with human
environment...and it's statistical in all its roots.
|
Confusing all with some Selecting corroborations while rejecting disconfirmations Inverting implications Fixating on irrelevancies Forging ahead oblivious to fatal logical contradictions and errors Seeing scalars when looking at multicomponent measures Seeing gambler's fallacies in place of statistical realities Seeing an additive relationship when it's really multiplicative Not seeing orders of magnitude: confusing millions, billions, trillions... Seeing ratio and proportion as additive relationships (Most of these derive directly from Piaget's "formal operations.") |
In Europe, a woman was near death from a very bad disease, a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband Heinz went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1000 which was half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." Heinz got desparate and broke into the man's sotre to steal the drug for his wife. Should the husband have done that? Was it right or wrong?
First, think about how you would answer. Then think about how someone else would probably answer, but pick someone who's way of looking at such things is really important. For example in the 2004 Presidential elections, how do you think John Kerry would answer, and how do you think George W Bush would answer? Then look at the six categories of moral development* that this question was designed to evaluate. I first saw this in the Summer 1983 issue of Daedalus, in an article by Lawrence Kohlberg & Carol Gilligan entitled "The Adolescent as Philosopher." Adolescence is the time we develop our abilities to understand the kinds of abstractions that lead to science and mathematics. (Note that what at the end of the 20th century was called "physics" was called "philosophy" at the end of the 19th century.) So studying how our mental abilities improve during adolescence tells us a lot about how we can or cannot use science and math, about how our abilities to philosophize improve. Here lie the best competencies that the human mind is capable of achieving. Do we see this philosophy as being "ivory towered and quite out of touch..." or it is a personal intellectual power source which we can actually use to our advantage. |
"We
can, and we've got to, do better than this."
Theodore Seuss Geisel |
|
*
On the linked page, Kohlberg's higest levels of morality are described
as being "defined in terms of conformity to shared standards, rights, or
duties apart from supporting authority." Stage 5 refers to "rules
which seem to have a rational basis," and stage 6 leads to "self-condemnation
and guilt" if internal values are not adhered to.
I suggest that Stages 5 & 6 stem simply from a broader and more complete recognition of social relationships and implications of mutual reciprocity. They consider a much broader range of reality than do the lower stages. "Shared standards" are really rather rare at Kohlberg Level III: too few share standards that arise from recognizing rights of a broad spectrum of different people--making "conformity" here a misleading term. "Seem to have a rational basis," suggests to me that some imperatives haven't been recognized, imperatives that make the viewpoint more rational. Rationality is not an either/or process. And "guilt" is a common misperception of the feelings of people who understand the implications of mutual reciprocity when they see lack of understanding steering society toward disaster--that's not guilt; it's frustration. "Ethical-Logical Comprehensiveness" describes the more complete moralities. |