On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 04:31:43 -0700, Louis Schmier wrote: >Mike, "intuition," among "objective" research scientist?
Louis, given that physical reality is incredibly complex and our experience of it is often limited, misunderstood, and incomplete, even "objective" scientists use "heuristics" (rules of thumb that suggest a course of action even though the basis for the that course may be completely wrong; pragmatically, it produces a desired result; contrast heuristics with algorithms which provide objective rules and processes for solving problems -- check Wikipedia for entries on these concepts, you can start with the list of cognitive biases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_biases ). The problem with biases and heuristics, which might be interpreted as "intuition" (in contrast to, say, making decisions on the basis of bayesian analysis of the information involved in a situation), one is often unaware that they are relying upon them and may cause one to discount information that is more relevant and valid. I believe it was Michael Polanyi, who focused on the role of tacit knowledge in scientific research, was the first to say that scientists operate at two levels: consciously where they apply their rules and knowledge to the solution of a problem and at an unconscious level involving tacit knowledge, that is, knowledge that operates outside of consciousness but can still influence one's behavior. Polanyi proposed these ideas in 1966 but in recent decades social cognitive psychologists have focused on priming effects: how stimuli in an environment can activate knowledge outside of consciousness and have an effect on behavior without the person being a aware of it. If asked why one did something, people usually try to provide some explanation even if it is completely absurd. This might also be a case of "intuition" but a shrews observer might conclude that the person was engaging in confabulation. See the Wikipedia entry for confabulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation >My god, you telling me that scientists are human? It's sad that you even make such a statement. All I can say is "Smile when you say that." >Interesting that you think it is "sad." Did you read the NY Times article? What was sad was the cancer victim who went to Duke for evaluation and treatment and was promised "pie in the sky" and got death instead. Her husband is now suing Duke and the people involved. That is what I meant as being "sad". >And, you have a subjective "feeling." You're coming around. :-)) Louis, this statement as well as others you've made are juvenile and represent a seriously distorted world view. I try to cut you some slack because you're a historian and don't appear to have a clue about the difficulties doing scientific research (nor do you appreciate that problems associated with using anecdotes as "case studies" or as evidence of anything). But sometimes your stereotyped thinking is a little too much to bear. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=11327 or send a blank email to leave-11327-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
