Question #3: not an answer, but a thought. I believe in evidence also, but I also believe that if something cannot be disproved, it remains a possibility.
All through history, that has been a fundamental of science. Often the scientists who were ridiculed in their day, were later proven correct.
Q2. Can true wisdom be achieved without embracing an interdisciplinary approach to knowledge, and how does specialisation risk fragmenting our understanding of the world?
Can only speak wisely on my own behalf, re the quest for wisdom, based on personal experience. Some people (even in the same family) are born wiser than others (for various logical reasons, no doubt). I was born, with zilch apparent wisdom that took me to rock bottom where it became obvious, everything I thought I knew, was learned, an illusion; moreover, the source of my dysfunction.
Thereby, my search for true wisdom started at the fortuitous place, of knowing nothing.
I began a long, committed, interdisciplinary approach to gaining knowledge, weighing the various wise opinions up, and going within, to find my own answers - finding true wisdom in the process. I think true wisdom is personally revealed, insight, knowledge is the finger pointing to the moon, it is not the moon.
Specialisation certainly enhanced my understanding of the world, whilst fragmenting the world’s understanding of me.
Q3: "Can belief in evidence coexist with the acknowledgment of subjective experiences or phenomena that resist traditional forms of measurement, and if so, how might we reconcile the two?" There is only subjective experience, whether 'measurable' or not (Ref: Steve Woolgar "Science: The Very Idea", 1998).
The idea that 'only the measurable' has any real (ie: scientific) validity, is fine as long as it is remembered that this approach (or belief-system) is no different from a religious cult.
Basing knowledge on 'Measurability' reduced to the five physical senses, is bizarre to say the least. "I love you dear" ... "Pah, that's anecdotal! I want scientific proof otherwise I can't take you seriously!"
I worked at an engineering company when I was young, which turned my opinion about engineers on its head. They were very creative thinkers; they were just more interested in creating things that had a practical application.
I remember years ago reading about Leonardo and Rembrandt and other artists learning about making their own colors to paint with or how to prepare a wall or a ceiling to receive paint for a mural - and I realized that in addition to artists they were chemists and physicists
Why do you not source your quotes? It’s my constant harangue against most quotation sites, and the proliferation of quote memes. It encourages divorcing the quote from its context, promoting a lack of further inquiry by not directing the reader where to go to… next. It’s academic laziness. I’d even go so far as to say “irresponsibility”. It also defers (undeserved) credit to you, the quote’s “finder,” when any and all the credit should go to the author of the quote.
Hi there, thank you for your thoughtful feedback! I used to include the sources of each quote, but I eventually decided against it due to practical constraints. When I began working on the Philosophors website and curating over a thousand quotes, it became incredibly challenging to accurately pinpoint the source of each one. Verifying every source personally proved almost impossible, and I felt it was more responsible to leave out the source rather than risk providing incorrect or misleading information. Regarding credit, I never received or expected any credit for the quotes themselves, and I'm not entirely sure how leaving out the source might give me undeserved credit instead of the author.
Perhaps not credit but residual off-gassing: look at me, I found this quote, but I've not really done the work by bringing you from-the-source material. 🤷🏽♂️
Very curious reasoning this. I would tend to agree if the quote had no attribution! But the quotes are properly attributed, but your grouse is that the sources aren't served on a platter for you. Seems to me like this harangue is borne out of the slothfulness you accuse others of.
You’re being willfully obtuse. I just like some rigor with my pablum, I guess. Anybody can cut/paste—curate, as everyone’s calling the practice these days—a bunch of quotes. And all the gurus do. In their words-from-the-wise newsletters. But engaging quotes in context is what true intellectual discovery is all about, and you remove that option by cutting off the source.
Misattribution also abounds. As does mistrust. I’m an advocate for covering your bases, not just trusting every internet Tom, Dick, or Ludlum that comes along. But to each their own. I’m obviously tilting at windmills on this one.
“Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken,” said Wilde. Well, no, he didn’t. But let’s pin it on a gay man struggling with his sexuality when being gay was verboten. That fits.
And so it has. On every “attributed” meme you can imagine. 🤷♂️
A good artist can create great works with intuitive feeling and then be able to explain it afterwards. It can make for a much quicker path. Scientists are artists that have to be able to put their feelings into formula
Zitat № 02: "Wissen ist unteilbar. Wenn Menschen in einer Richtung weise werden, werden sie es sich sicher leichter machen, auch in anderen Richtungen weise zu werden. Wenn sie dagegen das Wissen aufspalten, sich auf ihr eigenes Gebiet konzentrieren und andere Gebiete verachten und ignorieren, werden sie weniger weise - sogar auf ihrem eigenen Gebiet." - Isaac Asimov
Wissen und Weisheit haben nichts miteinander zu tun.
✿ Wissen ist etwas Praktisches, Nützliches.
✿ Weisheit ist eine Art "Zustand", eine bestimmte Ebene (6) der Geistigen Reife.
🌷
Zitat № 03: "Ich glaube an Beweise. Ich glaube an Beobachtungen, Messungen und Schlussfolgerungen, die von unabhängigen Beobachtern bestätigt werden. Ich glaube alles, egal wie wild und lächerlich es ist, wenn es Beweise dafür gibt. Je wilder und lächerlicher etwas ist, desto handfester und solider müssen die Beweise sein." - Isaac Asimov
In deiner Beweis-Gläubigkeit 😉 bewegst du dich auf den unteren Ebenen deiner Möglichkeiten.
Zitat № 01: "Wie oft wird von Kunst und Wissenschaft gesprochen, als wären sie zwei völlig verschiedene Dinge, die nichts miteinander zu tun haben. Ein Künstler ist gefühlsbetont, denken sie, und benutzt nur seine Intuition; er sieht alles auf einmal und braucht keinen Verstand. Ein Wissenschaftler sei kalt, meinen sie, und benutze nur seinen Verstand; er argumentiere sorgfältig Schritt für Schritt und brauche keine Phantasie. Das ist alles falsch. Der wahre Künstler ist sowohl rational als auch phantasievoll und weiß, was er tut; wenn er das nicht tut, leidet seine Kunst. Der wahre Wissenschaftler ist sowohl phantasievoll als auch rational und kommt manchmal zu Lösungen, denen die Vernunft nur langsam folgen kann; wenn er das nicht tut, leidet seine Wissenschaft." - Isaac Asimov
Und dennoch: Zum Beispiel der mit Farben Gestaltende ist ein ganz anderer Typ als der Wissenschaftler.
Der Eine ist extrovertiert, kreativ, der Andere nimmt es genau, bevorzugt die Datensammlung.
Was ihnen gemein ist: Das Fehlen von Verantwortung.
An der Geistigen Reife gemessen, erreichen beide nicht die Erwachsenen-Ebene (4), sie steht u.a. für die Befähigung, Verantwortung für das eigene Tun zu übernehmen. Beide bevorzugen sie die Kleinkind-Ebene (2). Der Künstler wagt sich gelegentlich auf die dritte, die des Rebellen (3).
Die Reife-Ebenen (4), (5), (6) und (7) kommen in beiden Sparten eher selten vor.
Ein durchschnittlich begabter Familienvater wird bei allen seinen Unternehmungen niemals das Wohl seiner Familie aus den Augen verlieren. Das nennen wir "Verantwortung übernehmen" und meinen damit die Erwachsenen-Reife (4).
Wenn die Wissenschaft diese Reife-Ebene (4) jemals erreicht, wird sie bei all ihrem Tun die weit verzweigten Auswirkungen ihres Ansinnens nach bestem Wissen berücksichtigen.
A phenomenal book on this topic is “Art & Physics” by Leonard Schlain. I read it ~12 years ago and insights from it still bubble up for me today. Completely shifted my perspective about the two fields from being a dichotomy to being symbiotic.
Oh I get it. Folks should post the entire works from which they got a quote in order to meet your threshold of rigour. It's a blog post and not a dissertation. At least, you acknowledge that you are howling at the moon with this.
The real artist is a scientist.
The real scientist is an artist.
Good example: Leonardo da Vinci
Question #3: not an answer, but a thought. I believe in evidence also, but I also believe that if something cannot be disproved, it remains a possibility.
All through history, that has been a fundamental of science. Often the scientists who were ridiculed in their day, were later proven correct.
Love that the questions are now right after the quote instead of at the end
This!
Q2. Can true wisdom be achieved without embracing an interdisciplinary approach to knowledge, and how does specialisation risk fragmenting our understanding of the world?
Can only speak wisely on my own behalf, re the quest for wisdom, based on personal experience. Some people (even in the same family) are born wiser than others (for various logical reasons, no doubt). I was born, with zilch apparent wisdom that took me to rock bottom where it became obvious, everything I thought I knew, was learned, an illusion; moreover, the source of my dysfunction.
Thereby, my search for true wisdom started at the fortuitous place, of knowing nothing.
I began a long, committed, interdisciplinary approach to gaining knowledge, weighing the various wise opinions up, and going within, to find my own answers - finding true wisdom in the process. I think true wisdom is personally revealed, insight, knowledge is the finger pointing to the moon, it is not the moon.
Specialisation certainly enhanced my understanding of the world, whilst fragmenting the world’s understanding of me.
Q3: "Can belief in evidence coexist with the acknowledgment of subjective experiences or phenomena that resist traditional forms of measurement, and if so, how might we reconcile the two?" There is only subjective experience, whether 'measurable' or not (Ref: Steve Woolgar "Science: The Very Idea", 1998).
The idea that 'only the measurable' has any real (ie: scientific) validity, is fine as long as it is remembered that this approach (or belief-system) is no different from a religious cult.
Basing knowledge on 'Measurability' reduced to the five physical senses, is bizarre to say the least. "I love you dear" ... "Pah, that's anecdotal! I want scientific proof otherwise I can't take you seriously!"
He was more than just a science fiction writer.
I worked at an engineering company when I was young, which turned my opinion about engineers on its head. They were very creative thinkers; they were just more interested in creating things that had a practical application.
Hey, I like Asimov!
He was my first sci-fi author I majorly read,
followed by Arthur C Clarke.
Loved their clear writing.
I remember years ago reading about Leonardo and Rembrandt and other artists learning about making their own colors to paint with or how to prepare a wall or a ceiling to receive paint for a mural - and I realized that in addition to artists they were chemists and physicists
Why do you not source your quotes? It’s my constant harangue against most quotation sites, and the proliferation of quote memes. It encourages divorcing the quote from its context, promoting a lack of further inquiry by not directing the reader where to go to… next. It’s academic laziness. I’d even go so far as to say “irresponsibility”. It also defers (undeserved) credit to you, the quote’s “finder,” when any and all the credit should go to the author of the quote.
Hi there, thank you for your thoughtful feedback! I used to include the sources of each quote, but I eventually decided against it due to practical constraints. When I began working on the Philosophors website and curating over a thousand quotes, it became incredibly challenging to accurately pinpoint the source of each one. Verifying every source personally proved almost impossible, and I felt it was more responsible to leave out the source rather than risk providing incorrect or misleading information. Regarding credit, I never received or expected any credit for the quotes themselves, and I'm not entirely sure how leaving out the source might give me undeserved credit instead of the author.
Perhaps not credit but residual off-gassing: look at me, I found this quote, but I've not really done the work by bringing you from-the-source material. 🤷🏽♂️
Very curious reasoning this. I would tend to agree if the quote had no attribution! But the quotes are properly attributed, but your grouse is that the sources aren't served on a platter for you. Seems to me like this harangue is borne out of the slothfulness you accuse others of.
You’re being willfully obtuse. I just like some rigor with my pablum, I guess. Anybody can cut/paste—curate, as everyone’s calling the practice these days—a bunch of quotes. And all the gurus do. In their words-from-the-wise newsletters. But engaging quotes in context is what true intellectual discovery is all about, and you remove that option by cutting off the source.
Misattribution also abounds. As does mistrust. I’m an advocate for covering your bases, not just trusting every internet Tom, Dick, or Ludlum that comes along. But to each their own. I’m obviously tilting at windmills on this one.
“Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken,” said Wilde. Well, no, he didn’t. But let’s pin it on a gay man struggling with his sexuality when being gay was verboten. That fits.
And so it has. On every “attributed” meme you can imagine. 🤷♂️
A good artist can create great works with intuitive feeling and then be able to explain it afterwards. It can make for a much quicker path. Scientists are artists that have to be able to put their feelings into formula
Zitat № 02: "Wissen ist unteilbar. Wenn Menschen in einer Richtung weise werden, werden sie es sich sicher leichter machen, auch in anderen Richtungen weise zu werden. Wenn sie dagegen das Wissen aufspalten, sich auf ihr eigenes Gebiet konzentrieren und andere Gebiete verachten und ignorieren, werden sie weniger weise - sogar auf ihrem eigenen Gebiet." - Isaac Asimov
Wissen und Weisheit haben nichts miteinander zu tun.
✿ Wissen ist etwas Praktisches, Nützliches.
✿ Weisheit ist eine Art "Zustand", eine bestimmte Ebene (6) der Geistigen Reife.
🌷
Zitat № 03: "Ich glaube an Beweise. Ich glaube an Beobachtungen, Messungen und Schlussfolgerungen, die von unabhängigen Beobachtern bestätigt werden. Ich glaube alles, egal wie wild und lächerlich es ist, wenn es Beweise dafür gibt. Je wilder und lächerlicher etwas ist, desto handfester und solider müssen die Beweise sein." - Isaac Asimov
In deiner Beweis-Gläubigkeit 😉 bewegst du dich auf den unteren Ebenen deiner Möglichkeiten.
Beweise sind nützlich, aber nicht wesentlich.
Alles Wesentliche ist unbeweisbar.
🌷
Zitat № 01: "Wie oft wird von Kunst und Wissenschaft gesprochen, als wären sie zwei völlig verschiedene Dinge, die nichts miteinander zu tun haben. Ein Künstler ist gefühlsbetont, denken sie, und benutzt nur seine Intuition; er sieht alles auf einmal und braucht keinen Verstand. Ein Wissenschaftler sei kalt, meinen sie, und benutze nur seinen Verstand; er argumentiere sorgfältig Schritt für Schritt und brauche keine Phantasie. Das ist alles falsch. Der wahre Künstler ist sowohl rational als auch phantasievoll und weiß, was er tut; wenn er das nicht tut, leidet seine Kunst. Der wahre Wissenschaftler ist sowohl phantasievoll als auch rational und kommt manchmal zu Lösungen, denen die Vernunft nur langsam folgen kann; wenn er das nicht tut, leidet seine Wissenschaft." - Isaac Asimov
Und dennoch: Zum Beispiel der mit Farben Gestaltende ist ein ganz anderer Typ als der Wissenschaftler.
Der Eine ist extrovertiert, kreativ, der Andere nimmt es genau, bevorzugt die Datensammlung.
Was ihnen gemein ist: Das Fehlen von Verantwortung.
An der Geistigen Reife gemessen, erreichen beide nicht die Erwachsenen-Ebene (4), sie steht u.a. für die Befähigung, Verantwortung für das eigene Tun zu übernehmen. Beide bevorzugen sie die Kleinkind-Ebene (2). Der Künstler wagt sich gelegentlich auf die dritte, die des Rebellen (3).
Die Reife-Ebenen (4), (5), (6) und (7) kommen in beiden Sparten eher selten vor.
🌷
Ein durchschnittlich begabter Familienvater wird bei allen seinen Unternehmungen niemals das Wohl seiner Familie aus den Augen verlieren. Das nennen wir "Verantwortung übernehmen" und meinen damit die Erwachsenen-Reife (4).
Wenn die Wissenschaft diese Reife-Ebene (4) jemals erreicht, wird sie bei all ihrem Tun die weit verzweigten Auswirkungen ihres Ansinnens nach bestem Wissen berücksichtigen.
Derzeit tut sie das nicht.
A phenomenal book on this topic is “Art & Physics” by Leonard Schlain. I read it ~12 years ago and insights from it still bubble up for me today. Completely shifted my perspective about the two fields from being a dichotomy to being symbiotic.
There's no better pursuit or perspective in life than to lie on the edge of the art/science convoluted intersection.
Oh I get it. Folks should post the entire works from which they got a quote in order to meet your threshold of rigour. It's a blog post and not a dissertation. At least, you acknowledge that you are howling at the moon with this.