Objective Knowledge

Interbane · Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:06 pm Post subject: Objective Knowledge

I'm putting this here instead of in my member journal, where I originally started it. Unfortunately, both this discussion and my list of books was erased. Bleh.

Objective Knowledge by Karl Popper.

In the beginning, Popper talks about how science is a source of knowledge. A good point that he makes is that the aim of science should never be to prove a theory or hypothesis true, but mainly attempt to prove it untrue.

I used a visual analogy of a sculpture, in that the growth of objective knowledge is similar to the process of sculpting by shedding useless material. The true form(objective reality) of the sculpture is in there somewhere, but it's only through elimination of what we know is not a part of the true form that we progress.

Induction is predicting what we have not experienced based on what we have experienced. Induction only has a negative solution, that is, it's irrational. This seems counterintuitive simply because you must make the distinction between psychological common sense and certainty in the objective sense. Psychologically, we could not survive without induction, it is fundamental to the process of trial and error elimination that helps us survive, but that does not mean that we are justified in making predictions using induction to prove a hypothesis as true.

Popper proposes 3 worlds, the first is objective reality as we commonly think of it, the world around us, our environment. The second is the subjective reality we all experience. The third is objective knowledge, which is the main thesis of this book.

An interesting method of dealing with language is necessary to utilize the third world without overly subjective influence. That is of using a metalanguage, which is in most cases simply a sentence that embodies a concept. In using a metalanguage, the subjectivity and interpretation of the words used is done away with, leaving the concept able to be expressed objectively. The example was a phrase in German(which I can't speak), that could be simply identified as proposition A to refer to the concept that it embodied.

This third world of knowledge is analogous to a spiders web, or an anthill. Though not physical like these analogies, objective knowledge is still a product of humans in much the same way. We influence the third world, and it influences us in return. The third world is autonomous. Take mathematics for example. We conjecture that 1+1=2, which is analytically true, we have the number sequence and method to find prime numbers. But, problems arise on their own in mathematics, not as a direct result of humans, but as a direct result of the objectivity of the conjectural system. Examples are Euclidean geometry, infinite primes, and unsolved proofs or equations. To take this one step further, think of a mathematical computer using algorithms to solve problems, yet isolated from humans. If it finds solutions, humans may never know of it, yet the solutions are a part of the third world.

Popper also speaks of how so many epistemological philosophies have developed which rely on the subjective experience as the starting platform, such as the esse is percipi of Idealism. These form mainly as a result of philosophers attempting to achieve certainty in what they propose. Certainty cannot be achieved. They strip away everything but sense datum in an attempt to achieve certainty, and the result is a solipsistic attitute of denying objective reality. But even the subjective experience itself is not certain, so these epistemologies are failures. The best starting platform is that of common sense(generically).

My summary of what I've read so far may gloss over some important details or may have been misinterpreted. Anyone manage to read all that?

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:58 am Post subject: Re: Objective Knowledge

Going by the theory of the book "Blink", I only needed to erad the first two paragraphs to find this book interesting. Thanks, hopefully this makes the poll for a quarterly reading.

Another to add to my personal list at any rate!

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

marti1900 · Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:57 pm Post subject: Re: Objective Knowledge

Interbane, I read all of your post. And Mr. P, what is the theory of Blink?

Marti in Mexico

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:49 pm Post subject: Re: Objective Knowledge

Check out the Nomination thread. Basically, that strong decisions can be made in the first few seconds of exposure to a situation. "In the blink of an eye".

Studies show that the more people think about a decision, the more likely it is to go wrong. This is not 100% of course. Some people have this developed more than others. Like the art critics and experts in the preface of the book spotting the fake statue, even after the museum and scientific research on the statue, after 14 months, validated the statue as authentic.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Interbane · Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:23 pm Post subject: Re: Objective Knowledge

That's my next book, regardless of whether or not it wins the poll.

I have a tentative theory based on past experiences, it's related to what you've said so far. Those past experiences have been situations where I've excelled or acted in a remarkable way without hesitation, then analyzed myself in hindsight. It lead me to criticize the way I undertook my training in high school wrestling. The relevant point in my criticism was that a grouping of actions that was well trained on a fundamental level could materialize in an instant's notice the most efficient action or counter action to an opponents action. My peers would train on specific wrestling moves, but I would focus mainly on the dynamics of the human body, and psychology with regards to reaction and misdirection; the moves fell into place after that. I took second at state finals in Michigan, a very competative wrestling state, yet was ranked first and lost in an unfortunate way to take second.

It will most likely take reading Blink to ossify my thoughts on this, but I've had similar experiences in other cases. In the Air Force, I worked on Nuclear missles, ICBM's. I was an electro-mechanical team chief, with dumptruck loads of responsibility. To prep myself for every eventuality, I disregarded the "Final Destination" approach of trying to concieve of every possible catastrophe that could happen, and instead ingrained into my head a basic philosophy of how best to 'react' to any mishap:

What I believe is the concept of "Blink"(even though I haven't read it) is that my brain can come to a solution so much faster than if I were to analyze the situation. So my philosophy was to act immediately. This could entail everything from rushing to an injured person, to calling for help, to inaction while a hazard degenerates into a non-hazardous state. I considered all of those things 'actions', even inaction, and had a situation one time where I put this to the test.

I may be arrested for saying this, but in a Nuclear silo, a battery weighs 1500 pounds, and is filled with battery acid. In the process of changing one of these batteries out due to failure, the replacement battery fell over and cracked. I immediately told one of my airmen to get the command center on the line, told another to gather the hoisting equipment from the other room(to lift the battery to an upright position), and had the crew members open a door for ventilation, all within seconds, even though I'd never contemplated this situation. Only in hindsight did I realize that without my prior mental emphasis to act immediately, this situation could have lead to personal injury or equipment damage other than the battery.

These thoughts seem related to "Blink", and I've been craving the book since Mr. P mentioned it.

marti1900 · Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:52 am Post subject: Re: Objective Knowledge

I have read a great deal on the concept of instant decisions that arise out of prior knowledge or training. This is the basis for a lot of those executive training how-to's for how to get off your duff and make quick, good decisions. Too much over-thinking can often lead not to the wrong action, but to inaction.

I think the human brain is hardwired to do just that, as primitive man/woman didn't have a lot of time to sit around mulling over the possibilities when faced with imminent danger. But I think we have begun to lose not only this ability but this concept because of the ever-growing multiplicity of options that face us in this modern life. The payoff remains the same today as for pimitive man...survival...but the way to achieve that seems at times almost endless so we get stuck in vacillation mode.

A tiny example: how many times do you find you can dial someone's phone number without thinking about it, but if you are asked for the number, you don't know it....you have to pretend dial to access the number in your head?
That's your brain being way ahead of you. LOL

Marti in Mexico

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:46 am Post subject: Re: Objective Knowledge

Quote:
What I believe is the concept of "Blink"(even though I haven't read it) is that my brain can come to a solution so much faster than if I were to analyze the situation.

Exactly. That is how I understand the thesis as well. And I totally accept that line of reasoning. The more I think, the more I tend to infuse sidetrack-laden details into an otherwise straight-forward decision.

A loose example: Not that many would agree with me, but I feel that the posts I make at booktalk that I feel are my best input are those that come from a reaction, rather than a thought out response. When I write, I sometimes get mired in thoughts and words and usually cannot get out one clear thought. But when I am sitting and have a thought, I can go for hours fleshing out those thoughts into some kind of coherent story. When I sit at the computer to transpose those ideas...I am in quicksand.

I am not sure if "Blink" is meant to address creative decisions, but I thnk it can easily apply.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:49 am Post subject: Re: Objective Knowledge

Quote:
Too much over-thinking can often lead not to the wrong action, but to inaction.

YES! I am guilty of this too. I want to do so much and think about things so much...then I usually sit around and do nothing. I have been working on this for years, but it is hard to overcome for me.

Quote:
A tiny example: how many times do you find you can dial someone's phone number without thinking about it, but if you are asked for the number, you don't know it....you have to pretend dial to access the number in your head?

This 'tiny example' is so big, I dare to say, in everyone's mind. I do this all the time. I also remember phone numbers by patters on the key-pad, rather than actual numbers. Of course, all the info for the number, or anything else, is IN the brain, it is just hard to get it out when we need it. I wonder why that is? Why when stress is present do people sometimes freeze? I guess it is chemical, but I just dont know.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

MadArchitect · Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:44 pm Post subject: Re: Objective Knowledge

A tiny example: how many times do you find you can dial someone's phone number without thinking about it, but if you are asked for the number, you don't know it....you have to pretend dial to access the number in your head?

I think this particular instance is due more to the storage of the "number" in a motor-sensory mode, rather than in a strictly numeric mode. You can dial the number more easily than you can say it because you've remembered it in terms of a spatial pattern related to the process of actually pressing the keys that dial the number. The easiest way to convert that motor-sensory pattern into a speakable set of digits is to imagine the keypad and where you're fingers would fall if you dialing the number -- and that's what most people do when asked to recite a phone number they dial more often than they write or say. It's easy to take advantage of that, too -- when someone tells you a phone number, it's easier to commit it to memory if you run through the pattern as it would fall on the keypad of a phone, rather than repeat the number sequence to yourself as though you were simply going to speak the number whenever you wanted to use it.

Jagannatha · Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:55 pm Post subject: Re: Objective Knowledge

Your thoughts on acting immediately really interested me, Interbane. I liken it to how I used to approach talking to women in social situations, as opposed to how I do it now. Previously I’d want to talk to a woman who took my fancy, then end up talking myself out of it: going over various ’what if’ scenarios, yadda yadda. Now I apply a 3–second rule: if I want to talk to someone I try to do so within 3 seconds of thinking of it, as far as possible (it may take longer to negotiate a clear path to them, for example). That way my brain can’t talk me out of acting.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT