Yes, let teach those "Other Ways of Knowing" and see how it works out.

[cleanhippie]

[Speck Tater]

1. Academic Economics vs. wishful thinking.

Oh, wait. Those are the same thing.

[humblebum]

2. Um? They are being taught, but as usual you have no clue of what you are talking about

due to the extremely narrow constraints you have imposed on how YOU feel people should think.

And like your reflection SS you will continue to deny that the subject has ever been thoroughly addressed.

[dballance]

3. The Narrow Constraints On How People Should Think? Seriously You Must be Joking.

I can't think of any organizations like the Roman Catholic Church or Westboro Baptist that wish to enforce their narrow constraints on what they feel people should think. Unless we take into account the Saudi Religious police or the Taliban that was more than happy to try to assassinate a girl because she wanted to go to school. Do you really want to go there?

Both of those organizations and their ilk have a long history of trying to make people conform to what they believe and trying to make people think what they believe is right. Perhaps you've forgotten the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials. Not to mention those holier than thou Puritians were more than happy to execute Quakers for their beliefs in the early colonies.

So get a clue.

[humblebum]

4. Totally, absolutely serious, however I did not say that the party referenced is,

or was, the one who's the only purveyor of tunnel vision. Self-identified "free thinkers" are often anything but.

[rug]

5. Fine example of binary thinking.

Of course, humans are not binary.

[tama]

6. No doubt

the only way of knowing is thinking, and not only thinking but thinking based on binary logic...

[humblebum]

7. Not to mention that binary thinking can also occur within the construct of different

epistemologies or methodologies.

[timesamillion]

8. Can't we just teach that other ways of thinking exist?

I remember learning about paganism and moon worship in grade school. The teacher wasn't having us practice paganism, just summarizing its origins and modern observance.

It might be worth it to teach about the existence of the main beliefs, like creationism, like that in this country since, right or wrong, all those beliefs are part of American culture.

[skepticscott]

9. Oh, other ways

of thinking certainly exist (we diagnose some of them as mental illnesses), and so do other ways of trying to learn, but neither is the same as another way of knowing, a distinction the village collection here is completely unable to grasp.

[LARED]

10. The village collection

is well aware of the difference. They just don't agree with your opinion.

[skepticscott]

11. If they are, they've shown no evidence of it

And what exactly is the "opinion" they don't agree with?

[humblebum]

12. Probably that your exclusivistic POV is so narrow and unyielding even in the

face of such transparency as to be laughable.

[LARED]

13. So agreeing with your opinion would be sufficient evidence? Yes? nt

[skepticscott]

14. You can't even specify

what "opinion" you're talking about, can you? Until you can, your question is meaningless and useless.

[LARED]

23. To be clear I am referring to your opinion not just any opinion

rather than me try to express your opinion (which of course will lead to inaccuracy and provide you an excuse to nitpick) be a sport and opine about the lack of "other ways of knowing"

[skepticscott]

25. What a lame horseshit dodge that is

You could have linked to a post where I expressed the "opinion" you claim to be referring to (and there MUST be one out there, unless you're just pulling this out of your ass), or you could have cited an exact quote of mine where I expressed the "opinion", so your excuse about "nitpicking" is worthless and transparent.

[tama]

27. ...

http://www.apa.org/topics/anger/control.aspx

[LARED]

28. The dodge is on you.

Either you have a opinion you think is intellectually valid or you're are just playing games.

[cleanhippie]

29. No, YOU claimed SS had an opinion about something, so just what was it.

It was YOUR post that made that claim, it is on you to clarify yourself.

Come on,LaRed, isn't lying a sin?

[LARED]

30. I lied? Please back that up.

Of course this could be another manifestation of your highly unusual definition of english words.

[cleanhippie]

31. What. Is. SkepticScotts. Opinion?

10. The village collection is well aware of the difference. They just don't agree with your opinion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=60995

There it is. Your post. Verbatim.


Again, the question is asked of you. What opinion are you talking about? (Will you continue to obfuscate, or will you just put this issue to bed and clarify what you were talking about? Remember, Jesus is watching.)

[LARED]

32. So I didn't lie, you did. Ok I understand your motivation

I answered the question, you don't like my answer which is fine.

[cleanhippie]

33. You may be able to convince yourself, but you cannot fool Jesus!

He knows, LaRed, He knows.

[tama]

15. Thinking and knowing

Again, do you deny that there can be knowing without thinking? Does e.g. the distinction between intellectual knowledge and embodied knowledge make any sense to you?

Or is thinking and various ways of thinking all there is and all there is to know?

[mr blur]

16. Frankly, nothing you ever say makes much sense

Why not explain what "embodied knowledge" is, exactly.

[tama]

18. Why "what exactly", not "how"?

Wiki search on embodied knowledge leads to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_transfer

I can now just give simple examples, such "knowing how" to play music, play sports, etc. without thinking.

[Laochtine]

17. I have no idea

What embodied knowledge is? I know things by using my senses, all 5. I use knowledge that has been culled by trial and error.
I intuit things through my experience and try to puzzle things out from previous knowledge. A lot of times my preclusions are not
the conclusions because I haven't done the thinking.

[tama]

19. Just five senses?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense gives a list of many many more.

For example, can you touch your nose with your finger eyes closed?

When you slip and are about to fall, do you think how to arrange your feet in order not to fall down, or does that happen without thinking?

Etc.

[humblebum]

20. For the purposes of empirical assessment, the 5 external senses are still the only ones considered.

Your sense of hunger will not let you know when you are about to walk into a door.

[tama]

21. "Gut feeling"

is common expression also in English referring to internal sensual experience and a way of knowing different from intellectual knowledge, as there is usually the problem of giving the intuitive gut feeling an intellectually meaningful interpretation, if such is required by the situation.

In many situation such is not needed, e.g. when playing music in flow state, with "gut feeling" or "from heart" (or both), not only without thinking but in state which gets broken by trying to think.

[humblebum]

22. Thank you.

[Laochtine]

34. Despite my days boxing

My nose is and will always be in the sorta middle of my face, a big target. They seem to be learned behavior in me, not so with you?
Take a child and do the same test? give her/him 10 years, embodied or learned?

[tama]

36. Did so

my kids, 8 and 13, passed without any problems.

What is learned, what is innate, and what is their relation, innate ability to learn? They say (I don't remember that little babies don't have differentiated sensual experiences at all, but that the differentiation comes with age. So in that sense, all senses seem to be "learned" - with innate ability to learn. Perhaps we are just talking mostly about cognitive and/or neurological mappings of sensual qualia.

Interesting topic.

[Laochtine]

35. I'd like to go on

This is a great Evolution teaching point. If we, as humans weren't born as big fat malleable butterballs we'd be hanging with Neanderthals. No embodied knowledge, just bodies equipped for a hard sharp world, we won, for now. Can't wait to see what climate change will bring, gills again? who knows

[tama]

37. Experience as such and ability to learn from experience

are already embodied knowledge.

Climate change is product of cultural aspect of biological evolution, so there is no reason to assume that the potential adaptation needs to happen very dramatically at purely biological level. Or on the other hand, we can of course define our self-identities and cultural filters and narratives as being purely biological.

[NoOneMan]

26. Surely its possible we can obtain knowledge without conventional conscious thought

Even non-"advanced" lifeforms demonstrate the ability to perform real-time, complex multi-variable calculus without any conscious thought process; an eagle will know exactly how to dive to a 3D location their prey is not yet even at (suggesting an inherent understanding of 4D space-time in their neural networks). As an eagle decodes their visual input, a "problem" requiring complicated math is presented, which the eagle can solve in fractions of a second before it begins its descent (at which point the problem is continually reworked until a solution is obtained, figuring in everything from wind speed and predicted prey path deviation). This "problem" (in its abstract mathematical representation) is subconscious, just as its solving is. The "knowledge" (answer to the problem of how to get to a certain every changing point), is partially subconscious as well in this example, and the eagle's conscious brain is probably entirely unaware of the calculus required to solve it and the very brain activity that is being utilized to solve it--just as a wide-receiver is unaware of what their brain is calculating as they jump up to a "known" point to catch a 30 yard pass (such known point is derived by subconscious processes devoid of conscious thought).

The real question, is what is the extent of this knowledge and how can we move subconscious "knowledge"/"solutions" into the consciousness to make overt decisions based on this knowledge. Is the brain capable of more than just quickly solving physics and math problems? Can the brain understand complex systems (like our economic system and our ecosystem) and know when a problem in the system exists? Could something like this have given our foraging ancestors a "feeling" (or dream) that they should move to different hunting grounds? Do some exceptional individuals' subconsciously process dynamic, complex systems of our current world and derive valid knowledge about what will probably happen in this casual universe? Can we all do this? Can we consciously enhance our subconscious understanding and processing, and also enhance our ability to translate this knowledge into the conscious sphere? How might that help us avert the consequences of living in this broken, unsustainable system (which some people get a "gut" feeling is wrong).

Who knows. I know that as long as we ostracize non-empirical thought and deride it, we will never get near to approaching these answer and figure out what our brains might be capable of