Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum What happens to us when we learn new stuff?

What happens to us when we learn new stuff?

I will tell you what happened to me when I learned new stuff. I assume that most people are affected in the same way.

We must use metaphors and analogies to speak about such matters. I choose as two of my metaphors the kaleidoscope and the pot of stew. World view and intuition I think of as similar terms. ‘Intuition is kaleidoscope’ and ‘intuition is stew’ are my two metaphors.

Learning new stuff is like putting a new seasoning or a new veggie in the pot of stew. Most of time the new seasoning or the new veggie has little or no effect upon the stew; sometimes a great change takes place--that new ingredient has a large effect. When the effect is large it might be like turning our kaleidoscope a notch and the intuition takes a dramatic change.

Let’s look at what happens when we examine our intuition as a result of our changing knowledge of the concept we call science.

I am a retired engineer and as a result I had a very high regard for and a very narrow comprehension of science. I considered science to be primarily a domain of knowledge encompassing matters that have as basic ingredients physics, mathematics, and chemistry. Any domain of knowledge that did not rest on the foundations of physics, math, and chemistry were of secondary or tertiary importance.

As I grew older my intuition was dramatically affected by my study of philosophy and later by my becoming what I call a self-actualizing, self-learning, and critical thinking man.

My comprehension of the meaning of the word ‘science’ changed dramatically. The dictionary has several definitions of the word ‘science’, one is--a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study. My comprehension of the meaning of science took dramatic changes; my kaleidoscope took constant turns over a 25 year period.

When I had a very narrow view of science and because I held that concept with such high regard my intuition was vitally affected as my comprehension of that concept changed. My attitude toward every other domain of knowledge was determined by my comprehension of this concept. As I grew in my comprehension of this concept my world opened up dramatically, my narrow and negative attitude toward all domains of knowledge changed tremendously.

Because I placed such great confidence and trust in science my world view, i.e. my intuition, became very unsettled. The ego is in charge of putting a check on anxiety and thus my ego fought hard against this change but my curiosity overcame my ego’s repression of these new ideas and these new ideas awakened a vast new world for exploration.



Do you agree that Joe and Jane have little comprehension of the meaning of science?

Do you agree that this narrow minded misconception is unhealthy for the United States?

"Do you agree that Joe and Jane have little comprehension of the meaning of science?"

Not only do I think that Joe and Jane, whom I take to be laypersons, have little comprehension of the meaning of science, I also think that very few engineers have significant comprehension of it. I'm there are even some erstwhile scientists who don't quite get it. Science is not physics. Science *IS* the scientific method applied to those areas of inquiry to which it is suited. It is not suited to addressing every conceivable question.

"Do you agree that this narrow minded misconception is unhealthy for the United States? "
That flaw of the misconception is not that it's 'narrow-minded'. The flaw is that it is wrong. However, asserting that non-scientific matters, such as ethics, religion, philosophy in general are scientific is also wrong.

If people do not understand the problem space in which they are operating, it is not likely they will ever solve the problems they set for themselves. So, yes, to the extent that people's misunderstanding of science inhibits the solution to real problems, it is bad (for the US and for everyone else).

However, many of those who will set out to 'fix' it may or may not do a better job than their predecessors. If they don't know what they're talking about, they could make things worse by muddying the waters.

Fiend says--"If they don't know what they're talking about, they could make things worse by muddying the waters"

I agree with these sentiments.

Do you mean how do we learn things?

Mostly we learn by adding new information to the information we already have. That is why children should have a very broad education in their early years. We also (most of us) progress from using acutal practical objects towards abstract thoughts, think of a toddler with blocks and an architect drawing plans. If we are to learn properly we have to move from the specific to the general, our skills in one area should support our skills in another, kids play at shops then go into a real shop.

Joe and Jane, Ali and Fatima, Hans and Gerda etc will do much better as an adult if they are taught how to learn as child,and not merely how to pass tests (particularly multiple choice ones!) The understanding of the process of learning is very important and early childhood education is the easiest and best time to start.

"The understanding of the process of learning is very important and early childhood education is the easiest and best time to start."

Yep, I heard (and I dont know if its right, but probably) that by age seven, it is significantly harder for a person to learn a new language. Wow! As a high-school student, I am appalled by the lack of learning in the public school system, as I have said in another post. Basically, it needs to be a bottom-up process ('levelling')......

Ellis

I am trying to focus upon what happens to us because of what we learn. Most things that we learn have little impact upon our world view. However, some things that we learn have a dramatic effect on our world view. I call this the kaleidoscope effect.

The question then becomes. Why do we inhibit our ability to learn these very important things, and how does this great effect happen. I think that psychology and cognitive science has answers to these questions.

I am informed that by 6 our personality is established and many things that are fundamental to our view of the world are established in ways that are very difficult to change.

Coberst- You ask why we inhibit our ability to learn very important things. Most people do not inhibit their ability to learn, but learning is much easier if we enjoy what we discover as a result of that learning. The broader our educational opportunities, the more we will explore the possibilities that learning can expose us to.

However you bring up an important point,-what are 'very important things'? If I were an australian Aboriginal my ability to find water in the dry interior of this country would be 'very important', I cannot quote from the Koran, or sing the American national anthem all of which are important in the education of people in some other communities, but not in mine.

If your education does not include aspects of life that sometimes contradict your own ideas then it is merely propaganda, and if the orthodox view is the only view you hear it will be easy for you to learn as you will be receiving constant reinforcement from your teachers, friends and community.

However, sadly, sometimes we cannot learn because we are unable to understand the subject matter. I, for example, could never learn to play a musical instrument, I had heaps of opportunity, good teachers- but cloth ears. It was never going to happen! So your inate abilities will also determine if you can learn retain and succeed at a task.

Many times teachers believe that if they have taught then the student has learned-- it should be like that, but it isn't! And although our personality traits are observable from the early years it does not mean we can never change. Such transformations can and do happen, but it is true that a language must be in place by the age of seven. Remediation after that age it difficult and not often successful.