Difference between revisions of "Holotopia: Narrow frame"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 37: Line 37:
 
[[File:Toulmin-insight.jpeg]]
 
[[File:Toulmin-insight.jpeg]]
 
</p>
 
</p>
<p>Stephen Toulmin's book "Return to Reason" provides a <em>historical</em> view of our theme, from the pen of a prominent philosopher of science. Toulmin's point is that <em>for historical reasons,</em> academic research got caught up a disciplinary pattern deriving from the 19th century physics—which now obstructs and confines academic creativity. Toulmin's call to action is to "return to reason"—and apply it creatively and freely (see [https://holoscope.info/2010/02/07/return-to-reason/ our summary], where <em>knowledge federation</em> is posited as a response).
+
<p>Stephen Toulmin's book "Return to Reason" provides a <em>historical</em> view of our theme, from the pen of a prominent philosopher of science. Toulmin's point is that <em>for historical reasons,</em> academic research got caught up in a disciplinary pattern deriving from the 19th century physics—which obstructs and confines academic creativity. Toulmin's call to action is to "return to reason"—and apply it creatively and freely (see [https://holoscope.info/2010/02/07/return-to-reason/ our summary]). </p>  
 
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
<b>To be continued</b>
 
 
<!-- XXX
 
  
  
Line 49: Line 44:
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Insights from physics</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Insights from physics</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Heisenberg–frame.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p> In "Physics and Philosophy" (subtitled "Revolution in Modern Science"), Werner Heisenberg observed that the way of looking at the world that our general culture adopted from the 19th century physics constituted a "rigid and narrow frame", which was damaging to culture. Heisenberg explained why the results in contemporary physics amounted to a scientific <em>disproof</em> of the <em>narrow frame</em> (see our summary [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/STORIES#Heisenberg here]).
 +
</p>
 +
<p>Heisenberg foresaw that the epistemological insights reached in modern physics would naturally lead to <em>cultural revival</em>.  Click [https://youtu.be/JNSPCUtlXGI here] to hear Heisenberg say that
 +
<blockquote>
 +
Most people believe that the atomic technique is the most important consequence. It was different for me. I believed that the philosophical consequences from atomic physics will make a bigger change than the technical consequences in the long run. (...) So we know because of atomic physics and what was learned from it that general problems look different than before. For example, the relationship between science and religion, and more generally, the way we see the world.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
</p>
  
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
 +
<b>To be continued</b>
 +
 +
<!-- XXX
 +
  
  

Revision as of 05:28, 3 June 2020

H O L O T O P I A:    F I V E    I N S I G H T S



Science gave us a completely new way to look at the world. It gave us powers that the people in Galilei's time couldn't dream of. What might be the theme of the next revolution of this kind?

Science was developed as a way to find causal explanations of natural phenomena. Consequently, it has served us well for some purposes (such as developing science and technology) and poorly for others (such as developing culture).

But its main disadvantage in the role of 'headlights' is that it constitutes a 'hammer'; it coerces the creative elite to look for the 'nail'—and ignore the needs of the people and the society.


This is not an argument against science.

Science has served us excellently in the role it was created for. There is no reason to believe that it will not continue to do so.

Our theme here is how we create truth (what we collectively believe in) and meaning, about the matters of which our daily life and interests are composed. And also those other matters, which demand our attention but remain ignored.

We have an urgent need for orientation and guidance.

In all walks of life—so that we may see things as we need to see them; and direct our efforts productively and wisely.

Our point of departure is the fact that nobody really thought about and created the way we create truth and meaning about those matters. What we have, and use, is a patchwork made of fragments from the 19th century science (which were available when our trust in tradition was shaken, and our trust in science prevailed), and popular myths. We tend to take it for granted, for instance, that something is trustworthy, true, legitimate or real, (only) if it is "scientifically proven".

Our point will be that we can do better than that.

And that our task at hand (federating Aurelio Peccei's call to action, to pursue "a great cultural revival") requires that.


We must return to reason

Toulmin-insight.jpeg

Stephen Toulmin's book "Return to Reason" provides a historical view of our theme, from the pen of a prominent philosopher of science. Toulmin's point is that for historical reasons, academic research got caught up in a disciplinary pattern deriving from the 19th century physics—which obstructs and confines academic creativity. Toulmin's call to action is to "return to reason"—and apply it creatively and freely (see our summary).


Insights from physics

Heisenberg–frame.jpeg

In "Physics and Philosophy" (subtitled "Revolution in Modern Science"), Werner Heisenberg observed that the way of looking at the world that our general culture adopted from the 19th century physics constituted a "rigid and narrow frame", which was damaging to culture. Heisenberg explained why the results in contemporary physics amounted to a scientific disproof of the narrow frame (see our summary here).

Heisenberg foresaw that the epistemological insights reached in modern physics would naturally lead to cultural revival. Click here to hear Heisenberg say that

Most people believe that the atomic technique is the most important consequence. It was different for me. I believed that the philosophical consequences from atomic physics will make a bigger change than the technical consequences in the long run. (...) So we know because of atomic physics and what was learned from it that general problems look different than before. For example, the relationship between science and religion, and more generally, the way we see the world.



To be continued