When we integrate from less abstract to more abstract, we unite two or more items of knowledge into a whole based on some real underlying similarity between them. To take a simple example, we integrate the concept of man and the concept of cat into the concept of animal, based on the numerous, important things they share in common (life, locomotion, perception, etc.) despite their many differences (claws, tail, volition, etc.). To take a much more complex example, Darwin integrated numerous observations about various species of animals, noticed certain denominators, and was able to grasp a causal mechanism (evolution by natural selection). Integration based on real similarities enables us to discover fundamental principles that apply to wide categories of things. Another form of integration is that of integrating new items of knowledge with existing ones, making knowledge into a unified, ever-growing, and ever-more-detailed whole. For instance, when the theory of evolution was first discovered, biologists connected it with their preexisting knowledge, which illuminated previous biological discoveries, and those discoveries helped clarify and illuminate the theory of evolution. Further discoveries in evolution, such as principles observed in laboratory experiments, followed the same pattern. Such integration, which we can call horizontal integration, also serves as a crucial check on previous knowledge; since we know that contradictions cannot exist in reality, if we discover a contradiction between a new idea and an old one, we know that at least one of them is not true. In both these forms of integration, and with all others, there is tremendous cognitive value to be gained—but only if the items being connected are real knowledge, and only if the connection is based on real similarities. If not, integration is a formula for cognitive disaster. —Lisa VanDamme
Posted on: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:10:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015