On 2/5/10 11:06 AM, "David Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote:
5. There has been a tendency in science, particularly philosophies of science, to privileged the knowledge of theory over practice or experiment. On Friday 5 February 2010 9:05 AM ³David Buckanan² wrote. <SNIP> ³Apparently, David has the idea that intellectual means "smart" and social means "dumb". But I think it's more like the social level evolved over tens or hundreds of thousands of years and this growth was less deliberate and more organic than intellect. Language developed and grew increasingly sophisticated but for the most part this was an unexamined tool. It was used, not scrutinized.² <snip> Hi Davids and all, I have trouble separating the ³social level² from the ³intellectual level². I prefer to see the social level as an ³emotional level² of DQ only, percepts, like gestures and intonations. Things have to grow. Language doesn¹t distinguish a ³percept² DQ from ³concept² SQ. That is the area of DQ/SQ metaphysics. I prefer to see ³percept² as an emotional latch and ³concept² as an intellectual latch. As the language becomes more abstract SQ (defined concepts) overpower the meaning of DQ (undefined percepts) in that they are less attainable in being undefined. Actually percepts are closer to the individual by being experience, (John and Lu¹s shortcut.). In evolutionary terms I would call percepts emotional, and concepts intellectual. I think it is right to consider the emotional level to have required tens or hundreds of thousands of years to evolve. ³Percepts² become "conceptual" only after years of experience. Intellect has a more explosive growth but has to depend on the original insight from practice or experiment. David T suggests that theory is privileged over practice and experiments. Error has grown in our societies and the only DQ emotion struggling with mathematics is evolution. I interpret Bo¹s SOL to be that SO is a defined concept and L is the undefined perception of evolution, an intellectual/emotional configuration. Joe > DMB, > >> Apparently, David has the idea that intellectual means "smart" and social >> means "dumb". > > Not at all. What I have been trying to tease out, primarily with Bo, is > that: > > 1. The intellect (the power and capacity for knowledge and reasoning) is a > property of the human brain that emerged deep in the social level. Much like > individual social behaviors in animals emerged deep in the biological level. > Intellect did not just show up at the emergence of the intellectual level in > Greece as Bo claims. > > 2. Intellect does not operate solely by subject and object reasoning. > > 3. Intellectual level did not emerge solely in Greece. Though I do > acknowledge that alphabetic written languages, particularly Greek, were a > huge boon to its growth. > > 4. The sole contents of the intellectual level is not science and science > is not solely accomplished through subject and object reasoning. > > 5. There has been a tendency in science, particularly philosophies of > science, to privileged the knowledge of theory over practice or experiment. > Recent history of science explorations have shown this is not only misguided > in many cases its just plain wrong. Experimental knowledge precedes theory > just as often as the reverse. The existence, some of the properties, and > some uses of photons occurred over 80 year before Einstein's theory about > them. To suggest that this information is not knowledge, or intellectual, > until there is an abstract theory describing it is wrong. > > Based on the above and particularly 5 I am thinking it is wrong to discount > the huge number of practical, useful, experiments that have occurred though > out the thousand of years the social level evolved and say that they are in > no way an "intellectual" activity. > > So, I'm saying the reverse of your take Dave. That really people at the > social level were and are a whole lot more "intellectual" than give credit > for and we would be well advised not the discard that knowledge overnight in > favor of a half baked theory of quality. Particularly Bo's SOL variety. > > Socially Yours > > Dave > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
