Mike G. wrote:
> Philosophy was the only useful thing that I learned in
> university...Not the substance, that was as you describe...
Ah-ha. I feel less sophomoric already.
> ...but the approach--a stance of critical (somewhat)
> detachment--digging out (and then critically challenging) hidden
> assumptions and taken for granted frameworks of thinking... All
> other learning has/had a price -- learning how to do that,
> priceless.
When I go back to look for something in a book that I read 30 or 40
years ago, I see frequent marginal notes in pencil: "SCOW". Semantic
Can Of Worms. Not identical with "hidden assumptions and
taken-for-granted frameworks of thinking" but evincing a similarly
critical reading.
I wonder where I learned to do that (to whatever extent I do succeed
in doing that.) I can recall, as early as junior high school, getting
answers to "why?" that didn't make any sense [1] but OTOH I also
recall failing teachers' expectations of literary criticism. Huh.
Maybe it was organic chemistry, where all the pieces of chemical
structure have to do the right thing, each for its own (very
technical) reason.
The pop artist Andy Warhol once approached me at a party and told
me he collected scientific journals, but couldn't understand them.
He drifted away, then came back and said, "Do you mind if I ask
you a question?". "Of course not," I replied. He asked, "Why
does science take so long?" I said, "Mr. Warhol, when you do a
picture of Marilyn Monroe, does it have to be exactly like her, as
close to being her as you can make it?" He said, "Oh no. And
anyhow, I have this place called the Factory where my helpers do
it." I said, "Well, in science it has to be exact, as exact as
you can make it." He looked at me with limp sympathy and said,
"Isn't that terrible?"
Bright Air, Brilliant Fire -- On the Matter of the Mind,
Gerald M. Edelman, Basic Books (Harper Collins) 1992,
p. 195
Thanks for the reflection on philosophy.
- Mike
[1] All my childhood, my mother rinsed her hair (after shampooing)
with cold water with a little vinegar in it. She assured me that
"it gets the last of the soap out". I learned early on about
aqueous solubility: solutes dissolve better in *hot* water. But my
novice scientific learning couldn't sway her. It was only years
later that I realized that when she was small -- circa 1910 -- all
her family's soap was made from animal grease and lye, boiled in
an iron kettle over an open fire, supervised by her then aged
grandmother. Cold water *precipitated* any soap remaining in hair
so it no longer *felt* slippery or soapy. The vinegar neutralized
the traces of lye that frequently remained in home made soap. She
hadn't used home made soap after 1917 and had used shampoo made
especially for hair-washing since it was invented in the 30s. But she
still had the unshakable but hidden assumption about cold water
and vinegar.
--
Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~.
/V\
[email protected] /( )\
http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
