en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning It took me years to develop the capacity to characterize myself as different from my peers in the scientific community, but finally, after having read this to the last line, I have never had my mind feel more at home! I found the only way to describe the difference between me and them was that they all seemed close minded, or a one track mind. Where entire conversations would be polluted with only the science such persons were specifically studying in their career. Often times they would not even consider looking intra-disciplinary evidence, let alone, learning the body of knowledge from another science that was not their own. I initially attributed this to career specialization but realize this is not the underlying cause. It is caused by the dogma resulting from teaching children deductive logic and critical thinking or disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence. By itself this would not be so bad of a mode of operation. The issue is when this IS THE ONLY acceptable mode of analytical operation. As the scientific community regards evidence much more rigorously than an analyst using inductive logic, there are major disadvantages. The result is a base of knowledge that is concrete and almost certainly unquestionable, but at the same time slow, and if fate might have it, dogmatically controlling and systematically inhibitive! I have observed this with my own eyes in the chemistry program at the University of Montana! I propose a system really no different than what we have, however, there would be a minor change. As I see it, tech schools and private practice already exhibit the functions of inductive logic in practice... I mean, where do you think engineers come from? Anyways, if I had known from the beginning that there was another option than science, and being a research scientist, like say being an engineer, I certainly would have considered it. I thought you go to school to become a scientist. If you were a great scientist, and maybe a bit of autistic genius, a school like MIT might scout you... This was my general impression of what a tech school or engineer was.. And as you have seen in my leaving school, certainly would have chosen such a profession for myself! So, I think there should be a portion of school(probably no different than GenED stuff) that would encompass all information and activities known at present day, and present the interrelations of such in whatever manner they were apparent... Almost like a meet the universe sort of thing, but from a systematic organized scientific way! Why is a tech school something you do after going to regular people school to apparently learn science? There is way more content you are forced into while attempting to attain a conventional degree. What you need is the alphabet that precedes the understanding of higher more complex sciences; these would be very much like courses on applied physics and applied chemistry! This would be like any of those minor classes you have to take in order to get the basics for your degree in other disciplines.. Like math for non-majors. Why are there not clear lines drawn as to what the two methods, (scientific research and engineering) are, how they differ, and what such a difference results in practice! There is no class I knew of that put things in proper perspective in respect to each other. Everything was specialized, even all of the mentors! Like you could only ever have a discrepancy within a discipline and not between them! WTF! I would have started on a more appropriate path a decade ago! With the apparent fundamental discoveries from organizing my observations, I could only imagine where the scheme would be had I started in a more correct manner.. Thanks for reading! (If I tagged you, I would really appreciate you check it out and think of instances in which we might not have gotten on due to this difference
Posted on: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 16:06:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015