John Dewey was deeply influenced by the findings of Darwin and his theory of evolution. He not only was a philosopher but also a psychologist. So he approached the phenomenon 'knowledge' from two perspectives.
From Darwin he learned that knowledge is an adaptive human response to environing conditions aimed at an active restructuring of these conditions..
This had consequences for the theory of knowledge. The traditional philosophy held that thought as a subjective primitive was the material from which knowledge was composed.
Dewey stayed close to nature and interpreted knowledge as the product of the interaction between organism and environment, and knowledge as having practical instrumentality in the guidance and control of that interaction.
The organism interacts with the world through self-guided activity that coordinates and integrates sensory and motor responses. The implication for the theory of knowledge was clear: the world is not passively perceived and thereby known; active manipulation of the environment is involved integrally in the process of learning from the start.
This means that knowledge is not a static given but a process and that any proposition accepted as an item of knowledge has this status only provisionally, in other worlds...just a coincidence that it works. It soon can be replaced by an better proposition.
This approach had serious consequences for the concept of truth. The tradional way of defining truth was a kind of one on one correspondence between a known fact or idea and a state of affairs or reality.
Dewey maintained that an idea agrees with reality, and is therefore true, if and only if it is successfully employed in human action in pursuit of human goals and interests, that is, if it leads to the resolution of a problematic situation in Dewey's terms.
How does this process of acquiring knowledge work? When the normal paterns of acting of the organism are disrupted, it shall go on to master the new situation.
The next step is to establish the most significant characteristics of the situation, so that these can be formulated as a solvable problem.
Next step will be to formulate hypotheses which will create a solution.
Then reason will organize and evaluate the different hypotheses, which means investigate and consider to what experiences each hypothesis will lead.
At the end of this process we have the final testing of the hypotheses which eventually leads to a new truth.
For those of you familiar with scientific methodology it may be a " I know the drill" experience. This approach led to the famous remark of Dewey "the truth is that what works".
We are only justified to accept a hypothesis if it works, each claim of "corresponding with the truth" is in the eyes of Dewey a metaphysical claim, which adds nothing to what we already know about the hypothesis or what we can do with it.
Thus knowledge isn't a one on one corrspondence with reality, but an instrument, a process to survive as a learning organism.
One final remark addressing Sage, who couldnt attend this class today but definitely will read the blog: I see no relation between phenomenology and Dewey's ideas. I tried to understand Husserl's ideas today again.....dead end..
And you, my friends, we will learn what phenomenology means and who Edmund Husserl is in the future and I will be happy when I can call it the past for that is the only philosophical school with which I really cant do anything. So be prepared for some fun....(^_^)
The Discussion
[13:36] Corona Anatine: ye all very wel Herman
[13:36] Corona Anatine: but here is an external reality of some form to outside
[13:37] Corona Anatine: whether we can ascertain knowledge of it is another matter
[13:37] Corona Anatine: but it does exist
[13:37] Corona Anatine: independent of research
[13:37] Gudrun Odriscoll: corona, corona, the sun is shining
[13:38] Alaya Kumaki: to say that it is outside is an hypothese
[13:38] Corona Anatine: argh
[13:38] Corona Anatine: ok define the leter a
[13:38] Herman Bergson: next lecture we'll discuss this issue....the existence of the external world
[13:38] Corona Anatine: it is all outdie of us
[13:39] Herman Bergson: slow down corona..:-)
[13:39] Corona Anatine: what is outside is unkonw but it is all outside
[13:39] Alaya Kumaki: as i see it now it is a form
[13:39] Herman Bergson: plz..:-)
[13:39] Corona Anatine: sorry
[13:39] Corona Anatine: i just do this like breathing
[13:39] Corona Anatine: i forget others dont
[13:40] Corona Anatine: sorry was why i could not be teaching
[13:40] Herman Bergson: ok...most interesting and new issue here is that Dewey sees knowledge more as a process than as a static object like traditional epistemology often does
[13:40] Corona Anatine: wel i would go with him on that
[13:40] hope63 Shepherd: makes it understandable why he thought of ecudaction
[13:40] Herman Bergson: another new element is his concept of truth
[13:41] Herman Bergson: oh yes,,Hope..
[13:41] Corona Anatine: truth hmm
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: I liked the idea that it did not work , well go back or forward, and get a new truth
[13:41] Marc Erdheim: is "i know the drill" an expression he uses himself?
[13:41] Alarice Beaumont: but we often have discussed it here.. knowledge is a process
[13:41] Alarice Beaumont: depending where you live and what chances you get!
[13:41] itsme Frederix: I admit (after I did some reading about pragmatism & LW p.e.) I do understand the concepts more - like 30 years ago, it makes sense
[13:42] Herman Bergson: No Marc.I did..:-)
[13:42] Corona Anatine: where you are etc is immaterial
[13:42] Corona Anatine: that just clouds issue
[13:42] Corona Anatine: subjectivives the question
[13:42] Alaya Kumaki: is drill like brainstorming?
[13:43] hope63 Shepherd: corona.. try to concentrate and ask a question.. not comments..:)
[13:43] Osrum Sands: I Disagree Corona
[13:43] Laila Schuman: can we stay on the subject please
[13:43] Gudrun Odriscoll: Corona, where are you, in the immaterial world? computer, internet, still some materia there --- YOU typing
[13:43] Corona Anatine: you have to see it as water stream containing sediment particles
[13:43] Corona Anatine: the process is the stream
[13:43] Herman Bergson: No..what I meant by ' I know the drill' is that Dewey formulated the basics of scientific methodology
[13:43] Corona Anatine: the particles the dirt
[13:43] Corona Anatine: which are dropped or picked up
[13:43] hope63 Shepherd: i think i'll look for the sediment on the bottom of my wine bottle..
[13:44] Corona Anatine: the facts of or theories
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL
[13:44] Herman Bergson: Corona..may I ask you to stop commenting
[13:44] itsme Frederix: Still formulation is just language, what counts seems to be succes!
[13:44] Haplo Eberhart: a theory is a possible explanation of an event. Not a fact
[13:44] hope63 Shepherd: success is relative.. a no-negative result would be appropriate..
[13:45] Herman Bergson: yes Haplo....that was dewey's idea to
[13:45] Haplo Eberhart: I think we need to drop the idea of the negetive
[13:45] itsme Frederix: its a very technical approach, how it works, well it works - no question why it works (which might be metaphysics)
[13:45] Alaya Kumaki: and what about evidence
[13:45] Herman Bergson: yes Itsme....
[13:45] Haplo Eberhart: There is no negetive. All work is positive. It is intend or carelessness that causes it to be destructive
[13:46] itsme Frederix: Herman I did my readings today
[13:46] Herman Bergson: yet I'll get to Dewey's metaphysics in the next lecture
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: ah
[13:46] Gudrun Odriscoll: Guys, have you got ADD. It is like in primary school. I get lost
[13:46] Herman Bergson: but you are right...knowledge is just instrumental to him
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: Dewey is long lived
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: he wrote an enourmous abmout of stuff'
[13:46] Ze Novikov: Ze smiles
[13:46] itsme Frederix: it is ... well it seems reduction
[13:46] Alaya Kumaki: knoledge is mind mecanisme of comparison from this and that
[13:47] Gudrun Odriscoll: Alaya, are you coming from an AGI point of view?
[13:47] itsme Frederix: what about the big idea's big ideals, just live your life ...
[13:48] Herman Bergson: What is AGI Gudrun?
[13:48] Alaya Kumaki: yeah wath is agi
[13:48] Laila Schuman: re: negetive.... i believe that you cannot, scientifically, prove that something is true... you can only say... we think this is true and then keep looking for that one exception to the rule that says it isn't... going on faith that it does not turn up...
[13:48] Gudrun Odriscoll: Artificial general intelligence, knowledge generating
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: I agree with you LaILa
[13:48] Alaya Kumaki: ouf it to far form me .... gud
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: I like that Laila
[13:49] itsme Frederix: Lala what is your definition of scientific?
[13:49] Laila Schuman: a search with intent
[13:49] Alaya Kumaki: i speak about the human mind
[13:49] Herman Bergson: But that is in line with Dewey laila...
[13:49] itsme Frederix: do not think science comes up witht the "thruth"
[13:49] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: and I think dewey would also agree
[13:49] Varick Vendetta: that doesn't sound very scientific
[13:49] hope63 Shepherd: how about a definition what discussion in a philosophy class should be like?
[13:50] Osrum Sands: I like Plato's concept of knowledge which is a combination of truth and belief
[13:50] Haplo Eberhart: science is an extention of philosophy. I belive it was a mistake to branch them off
[13:50] itsme Frederix: succesfull hope, look around!
[13:50] Alaya Kumaki: to look at ourself can show alot of the mind mecanism, without artificial mind to look at
[13:50] Annabelle Laminsk: Thank you Mr.Herman for the lecture today but I must be off.
[13:50] Varick Vendetta: bye anna
[13:50] itsme Frederix: Osrum forget about Plato, its reduced to plain succesfull
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: bye annabelle
[13:50] Gudrun Odriscoll: bye annabelle
[13:50] Herman Bergson: Bye annabelle
[13:51] Annabelle Laminsk: bai bai ebberyones
[13:51] Rodney Handrick: Bye Annabelle
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:51] Ganymede Blackburn: Bye, Annabelle. :)
[13:51] Ze Novikov: bye
[13:51] Annabelle Laminsk: Bai Lunch! :D
[13:51] Haplo Eberhart: Has anyone ever studied any persian philosphers?
[13:51] Herman Bergson: you may leave Annabelle..:-)
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: not in this class
[13:51] Laila Schuman: smiles... rumi... hafiz?
[13:51] hope63 Shepherd: omar khayyam?
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: this is western
[13:51] itsme Frederix: @Haplo, science is getting the world right (at your feed), what philosophy tried before, but science seems more succesfull
[13:51] Alarice Beaumont: oh no I'm just a starter!
[13:51] Alaya Kumaki: idn arabi
[13:51] Corona Anatine: could it be said then that more we philosiphize the less we know
[13:52] Haplo Eberhart: yep. I wish it was not so neglected in school
[13:52] itsme Frederix: Conna yes for me
[13:52] Corona Anatine: form this it follows that the less we do so the more we know
[13:52] Herman Bergson: No Corona...:-)
[13:52] Corona Anatine: therefore
[13:52] Varick Vendetta: corona, I'd have to say the more we philosophize, the more we realize we didn't really know what we thought we did
[13:53] Herman Bergson: HOLD ON...!!!
[13:53] Haplo Eberhart: @itsme science needs philosophy, some of their reasoning etc needs to be questined becuae they are platueing
[13:53] Alaya Kumaki: if u make a theorie out of that corona it wil be false the next time...cause nothing is static
[13:53] Osrum Sands: that appears to be defeatest Corona
[13:53] Gudrun Odriscoll: vomitting out thoughts, a new caustic soup
[13:53] itsme Frederix: Varick, by using a tool you know man by talking about it!!!!
[13:53] Herman Bergson: Just stop...
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:53] Corona Anatine: i was attempt to help clarify what seemed to be getting muddels in side issues
[13:54] Alaya Kumaki: i mean theories arent natures law.... so its can be taken as
[13:54] Osrum Sands: plz
[13:54] Herman Bergson: there is not such thing as on the one hand philosophizing and on the other hand knowing....
[13:54] Herman Bergson: if you would understand Dewey correctly you would know that
[13:55] Herman Bergson: what you call philosophizing you might regard as the dynamic process the organism is involved in as Dewey sees it...
[13:55] Herman Bergson: and knowledge as the result of succesfull testing of hypotheses
[13:55] Alaya Kumaki: mind has its own law ... can u into its mecanism...look?
[13:56] Varick Vendetta: there is what we believe we know and we can derive that from logic, experimentation, etc, but since our knowledge is not perfect and the mind can be fooled and our senses tricked, we cannot say anything is true one hundred percent.
[13:56] Herman Bergson: that is in line with Dewey's ideas varick
[13:57] Alaya Kumaki: mind doesnt perceive its failure to perceive the inner law of it self
[13:57] Herman Bergson: literally..
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: yes it is
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: very much so
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: I think that is why i like him!
[13:57] Jeb Larkham: there are personal truths and personal beliefs and somewhere in the middle is PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
[13:57] itsme Frederix: Herman besides the word "perfect" I guess, which is platonic
[13:58] Jeb Larkham: in my opinion
[13:58] Herman Bergson: What do you mean by that Jeb?
[13:58] Jeb Larkham: well.....
[13:58] Herman Bergson: there is also intersubjective knowledge
[13:59] Jeb Larkham: the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification
[13:59] Jeb Larkham: maybe?
[13:59] Herman Bergson: Well...
[13:59] Herman Bergson: how knowledge relates to truth we have heard in this lecture..
[14:00] Herman Bergson: and I will give you one issue to think about..
[14:00] Herman Bergson: according to Dewey all knowledge is provisionary
[14:00] Herman Bergson: will be replaced by new insights of the learning organism...
[14:01] Herman Bergson: that is ok to me, but it leaves me with a few questions..
[14:01] Herman Bergson: one is....has this development of knowledge a direction.....and this questions goes even back to Aristotle...
[14:01] Jeb Larkham: well I thing knowledge is about personal beliefs and general consensus
[14:02] Herman Bergson: an other question is...
[14:02] Herman Bergson: when knowledge is so fluid...so changing......are we facing here an absolute relativism..
[14:02] Jeb Larkham: hmmmm
[14:03] Herman Bergson: I have no answers to that at this moment, but these are issues that make me ponder..
[14:03] Alaya Kumaki: knowledge and insights are different... form
[14:03] Gemma Cleanslate: all of us
[14:03] Jeb Larkham: not so sure all knowledge is fluid (changes)
[[14:03] Jeb Larkham: there are facts to consider here
[14:03] Herman Bergson: So..I thank you for this discussion and let you go with these two questions....think about it
[14:03] Varick Vendetta: Look back at Socrates (or Plato, whichever really had the idea) and look at dialectic. I believe that would help with understanding of its direction
[14:04] Gemma Cleanslate: well look at the difference DNA has made to knowledge
[14:04] Alaya Kumaki: knowledge is in part memory, but not insights
[14:04] Gemma Cleanslate: WE KNEW and not we do not
[14:04] Gudrun Odriscoll: thanks a lot herman, lots to think about especially absolute relativism. can't come Sunday, sorry
[14:04] Gemma Cleanslate: know what we knew before
[14:05] Marc Erdheim: thanks a lot herman.
[14:05] Herman Bergson: there still is the blog Gudrun...dont worry..:-)
[14:05] Gudrun Odriscoll: see you Tuesday, bye all of you
[14:05] itsme Frederix: Herman you are (also) looking for some absolute-ness "has this knowledge direction", bach to Hegel, Plato
[14:05] Herman Bergson: Bye Gudrun
[14:05] Gemma Cleanslate: Thank you herman for all the questions we have now
[14:05] Samuel Okelly: isnt all knowledge a form of belief? (apoligies if this has been covered before my late arrival)
[14:05] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[14:05] Ze Novikov: yes ty vm herman
[14:05] Gemma Cleanslate: A Samuel
[14:05] herman Bergson smiles
[14:05] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[14:06] Jeb Larkham: thanks Herman.... nice one ciril
[14:06] Herman Bergson: Well Itsme.....the question doesnt imply this yet
[14:06] Varick Vendetta: as far as absolute relativism, I would have to say group conciousness prevents it from being absolute, but for each persons heterophenomenology, aside from cultural knowledge, it is highly relative to each persons experience.
[14:06] itsme Frederix: ?yet Herman
[14:06] Herman Bergson: we have to keep an open mind Itsme..:-)
[14:06] Alarice Beaumont: oh sorry.. got a go ... mmhh... see you on tuesday :-)
[14:06] Alarice Beaumont: nite everybody
[14:07] itsme Frederix: sure, but also a scope & viewpoint
[14:07] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Alarice
[14:07] Ze Novikov: bye bye everyone
[14:07] Herman Bergson: ok Alarice...take care..:-)
[14:07] Ze Novikov is Offline
[14:07] hope63 Shepherd: just baxck to the chat.. gemma.. what did you mean with dna
[14:07] itsme Frederix: Besides from stratup problem - I like this lectures so good
[14:08] Herman Bergson: I am glad you do itsme...
[14:08] Herman Bergson: I regard it as a compliment..:-)
[14:08] itsme Frederix: I know
[14:09] Varick Vendetta: so are the questions you had like homework? should I write a paper on it? lol
[14:09] Laila Schuman: baiee all
[14:09] Herman Bergson: Bye Laila
[14:09] itsme Frederix: its a compliment Herman, because of the very small amount of time (and only written words) you are forced to give the keys only - and very succesfull. I got a much brighter line yet
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment