I didn't get very much done today, but I suppose I needed that.
I've been thinking about how artificial logic is and how relevant it really is to apply it to everyday matters. I suppose what I mean to say is that science is merely a refined set of observations rather than the basis for nature to act. We suppose that we can figure out how nature acts, but that assumes that there are laws inherent in every particle of the universe, which is a crippling and arrogant assumption. Who's to say that what we observe does not reflect only our means of observation? I think this is the basis of quantum theory, that the system is changed merely by observing it, and you can not observe it without changing it.
Getting back to logic...we use logic as a rhetorical trick and as a basis for making sense of our immediate surroundings. But as soon as we use logic, which is an artificial representation of the world (like doing physics without accounting for friction), to explain the very things that produced the logic, we run into invisible problems. For example, if I say that there must be 120 chemical elements because of the laws derived from atomic physics, this can be misleading because I'm using the very laws I derived from a system to explain the system outside of what is known. But we accept this logical conclusion because it keeps the knowledge simple and accessible. However, the logic derived is necessarily only a subset of the total logic possible.
So what's to stop me from saying that a fortune-teller down the street says there must be only 115 chemical elements, and that this is the truth because, despite all of her vague predictions, her science is just as accurate and her logic is just as strong. Her domain of knowledge isn't the same, but doesn't that just mean that science is misleading, educated guessing? If the Farmers' Almanac can predict weather on a par with a meteorologist, who's to say which is more logical, or scientific?
I think we overestimate our knowledge of the world, and more, we overestimate how much our mentors should state as fact. As a teacher now, I find it almost shameful when I don't know a simple fact, but the truth is that my students should be learning how to find the truth themselves.
The quiz I've been giving has been trying to specifically pull that part out of them and use it. I separate the class into 10 groups, giving each group 4 different questions, different from every other group. I let them use their notebooks, books if they have them, other groups, students, teachers, etc., except that they can't ask me anything. Even if it's something as simple as "I can't read this word", they have to ask someone else to help them and trust that the "truth" someone else sees is the same "truth" that I envisioned. And the way I wrote the questions allows for various answers, depending on how the question is taken. My refusal to frame their responses, by remaining silent, allows for this logical ambiguity to come to the foreground and maybe, possibly, show them that science isn't all yes vs no. And it's in this in-between ground where they are not only forced to, but made less afraid to, think.
I just wish it were possible to do more of these exercises.
Today, I miss long, purposeful train rides, playing baseball, summer (it's pretty cold here right now), just blending in, miles of quiet forest, my bike, a good selection of beer, tofu, snow (I know, how can I miss summer at the same time?), space heaters (yes, that's how), access to information and loved ones.
Returning, still about 17 months away, seems fantasy-like.
Peace
John
