|
|
|
|
Cossie said,
>Oh, and one last point! I cannot for a moment accept Deeej's glib dismissal of divergent thinking in scientific development.
Where did I glibly dismiss it? I've been through every post I made in this thread and I do not believe I said anything along those lines. If you're going to disagree with something, please could you quote it so that it's possible to tell exactly what you're disagreeing with?
David
[Updated on: Sat, 28 October 2006 13:27] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... so I'll withdraw from the thread.
In response to Deeej, I was thinking of the following paragraph - and I equate intuitive thinking with divergent thinking:
"Intuition is fine if the end result is one that does not pretend to be scientific. Instead, it can be appreciated as a work of art. The main objection that I have to it is when intuition is used to make decisions that should be made only on the basis of hard facts. Science and politics are two areas where intuition should have no opening except as a basis for research (and in many cases the research ends up saying precisely the opposite of the intuition).
Science is a much wider discipline than you seem to think. My son is a Civil Engineer with an MSc Degree, and he confirms that in his field (transport design and construction) the revolutionary advances of recent years have generally stemmed from divergent thinking.
Ciao!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think I can add anything to that paragraph unless you can explain what is wrong with it! I do not think science is a narrow discipline; I think only that its various fields have certain immutable traits in common. I wonder if you are projecting something onto my words that is simply not there?
I use intuition to mean the production of a suggestion or idea that sounds or feels as if it might be right in a particular context. An architect might, for example, choose to design a building using glass and steel rather than bricks or concrete, because it has a certain aesthetic quality which is pleasing to the eye. He visualises it and comes up with a basic design. But then it is up to a structural engineer to confirm that the design is sound and that it will stand up to the stresses once it is built. This is what I mean by "intuition as a basis for research" -- regardless of how good an idea it is, it also has to be practical and scientific before it can be put into place in any field beyond the purely aesthetic.
I did not refer to divergent thinking because I am not sufficiently familiar with the concept to use it within an example. But if intuitive thinking as I have described it is divergent thinking, then I don't deny that it has its place -- only that it should be coupled with sound science also. You referred, I think, to Darwin's theories. His theory of Natural Selection is undoubtedly very imaginative -- I assume an example of "divergent thinking" -- but it can be accounted for also by logical (convergent?) thought and therefore, as far as I am concerned, is ultimately sound. I do not think it helps to try and group ideas by whether they are examples of convergent or divergent thinking, because ultimately all thoughts have a certain degree of originality, and to a certain degree are derivative, just in varying amounts.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... well, no, I don't agree.
It seems to me that you are backing away from your previous statements.
Of course innovative ideas need to be validated by existing scientific knowledge - but it is so often the innovative idea which moves science forward. I am not - and have never - devalued the importance of logical, scientific deduction. But you have implied that the intuitive 'leap in the dark' has rarely led to an increase in scientific knowledge. I would argue that over the whole field of scientific endeavour - both pure and applied - that simply is not true.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not backing away from my previous statements. My original statement, which you quoted, is pretty clear as far as I am concerned, "Science and politics are two areas where intuition should have no opening except as a basis for research". I agree with this absolutely. If I had known that you were going to take exception to it then I would have clarified further. At the time I was thinking of examples such as political rhetoric designed to appeal to the heart rather than the mind, and pseudoscience, usually financially motivated, to market unproven products and ideas to the gullible. But it applies equally well -- with a slightly different emphasis, since the "except" clause almost always applies -- to scientific areas where theories are indistinct, but are formulated (intuitively, if you will) and investigated by methodical scientists.
>Of course innovative ideas need to be validated by existing scientific knowledge - but it is so often the innovative idea which moves science forward.
Agreed.
>But you have implied that the intuitive 'leap in the dark' has rarely led to an increase in scientific knowledge.
I do not believe I said that, but if I implied it I apologise. It applies only in certain situations: if it's a "leap in the dark" that is wrong, but assumed to be right without evidence, it can also set science back many years. A leap in the dark that is subsequently proven to be right has undeniable value.
Personally, I am a bit fed up with this conversation, as you evidently believe that I have an opinion that I don't have, or that I must be changing it constantly to suit the occasion, and every post ends up as a discussion on semantics. So I'm going to bed. Night night! 
David
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
