Understanding shapes itself through the super-position between concepts and relationships between concepts, eg, numbers and mathematical rules. The number 2 is an abstract concept and the plus symbol (+) is also a abstract concept that defines and characterizes a semantic rule for the addition of certain concepts that we call numbers. It is through this kind of relationship that most of our knowledge and understanding of the world is formed. Concepts are defined and, with them, rules for the relationship of this concept with other concepts often similar. Mathematics is a language, as well as logic. All science is an effort to conceptualize a broad universe and seemingly illogical or inconceitualizável in certain "conceptual boxes" and find rules of inter-relationship between these boxes that explain the experimental data.
Does a mouse is capable of understanding the relationship between light and dark and the presence of the sun in the sky? Certainly a laboratory mouse is not capable of this feat. To do this he must first ascertain and identify the sun, separate it from all other entities of the universe and conceptualize the star in his worldview. After realizing he needed to clear the relationship with the presence of the star in the sky. As ever talked with a mouse, do not know if he is able to make such a distinction. It is this kind of conceptualization and application of rules to pre-identified concepts that shapes the development of all our knowledge.
Our brain works so semantically, and also how our language works. First we need to conceptualize something in the world, we need to transform some "feeling" that we have in the first step, one word (neologism). If I understand well, it's often the first step is the separation between two opposing events, such as day and night, sun and moon, man and woman. Or the discovery of any event that needs to characterize: a new animal, a cell, an atom. So, after humans have a repertoire of words and ideas, they can now observe it in nature and realize it with more distinction. Before this process of conceptualization, the "thing" that we observe is simply seen as indistinguishable from any other things and difficult to observe, it is combined with the complexity of the unknowable universe. Our first step therefore is to identify it, associate it with a cerebral concept and, ultimately, to a certain word. Now we observe that we can differentiate from the rest, we can see this thing separately. The next step is to verify certain regularities in the behavior of our new concept just created. What we seek in this second point, therefore, are simple rules which could perhaps define the behavior of this new entity to a large extent. You can imagine, for example, that many animals do not understand the concept of sun, they "know" simply because their daily experience that the daily cycle is divided into: a part where you can see and elsewhere where it is not possible. But perhaps a mouse has not been able to associate with the possibility of seeing the presence of a reddish yellow ball in the sky. Humans were able to detect this regularity and, first, they thought were even able to control it through the beating of drums. Throughout our epistemological path, then we got to today complex science of astronomy, where we are able to observe astronomical events in other galaxies, and link them to other regularities and patterns. We associate these observations in words and associate those concepts to logical rules and causal formation of the same, set rules that define relationships between these symbols and that can be verified in the real world reasonably effectively. Such relationships were not invented by us, but were perceived by attentive observation of the physical world. This highly complex universe will also produce thousands of efficient causal logic that one day achieve, others are beyond our cognitive abilities and can never be understood by us.
====
A word is more frequently we use to describe something that fit a certain regularity which is in the world: fear, hunger, cold, hot. Sometimes this conceptualization may come as a first insight in the identification of a dichotomy: light and dark, full-empty, big-small. For the first time you create a light-dark dichotomy, it is understood much of the world, since it classifies certain regularities as happening on the day or night. Presence of the Sun: day. Stars in the sky: night. I am convinced that much more regularity than those in the universe we are able to check today [1] and also realize that these regularities dichotomous guide the development of science [2].
Then we need to create relationships between the words of our repertoire-of-words forming a network between these concepts and possible relations between them. Certainly we have in our brains a huge repertoire of causal relationships that never will we realize them. Something like: "if the car ahead stops abruptly step on the brake" or "if the car comes towards us astray," other people who have never thought about it (the event held the conceptualization of the idea) may enter panic when the car comes your way and do not know what to do. Both the forces of dichotomies concerning the validity and interpretation of many concepts are different from person to person, and also different relations between them. Even a cow can mean different things to different people. A guy born in the city and saw a cow two or three times in life will not have as complete an understanding of what is a cow and a cowboy who lives with them every day, but do not know much about computers, for example. In fact it is so complex inter-relationship between what we see, how we conceptualize and how we express ourselves in words and communication, which is hardly surprising that we can communicate in a "satisfactory" [4].
The set of concepts and relationships that we do is sometimes called, in philosophy of language, conceptual cluster-or group-conceptual. The formation of this group or network of concepts depends both on a formal learning - taken by individual schools and universities - and his direct experience with the concept. Probably the city boy learned what was a cow before seeing it. But it might not be able to see it grazing or ruminating. The concept of risk in large cities also depends on the individual's experience of walking through these cities, even more than what you have been told. Much information that we acquire is false or exaggerated, a social mask to hide the false reality of certain situations. There is much conceptual confusion in society and so it is always best to define what it is before you begin a certain subject.
Especially in relation to broader philosophical concepts or complex as the concept of democracy, equality and freedom are frequemente used incorrectly and misleading politicians and manipulators of public opinion.
===
Even in science, in the same area of \u200b\u200bscientific knowledge, researchers are often not able to talk in a different language. In many scientific discussions the two parties do not mean by using different vocabularies, or because they have different backgrounds - many coming from different scientific schools; chemical biologists x, x physical chemists, molecular biologists, biochemists x, etc.. not think that's an exaggeration to say that there is a science to every scientist and I am sure that many of the concepts discussed are not understood in the same way. When two scientists from different traditions or discuss times, probably one will be more convincing than the other in their arguments or have understood more completely the science of his time, perhaps if this gives better professionally than the second. Moreover, the cluster-concept formed by the second scientist to let him go toward the scientific solution to a particular issue that might become important after some time. This diversity of views is one thing that gives strength to science and any attempt to reduce her to try to produce researchers embedded in a production system is intellectually dangerous [5]. Thomas Kuhn says that a science but bland, repetitive and abrupt consists mostly of the scientific enterprise of an era and gives it its name: normal science.
Each scientist has a vision of science that practices of its own and different from the views of other scientists. Of course there is much agreement as well, but this diversity of views is one of the strengths of the scientific enterprise - which is always renew itself and rebuild itself. The Einsteinian revolution was a scientific revolution concept, where (according to Thomas Kuhn) some basic concepts of Newtonian physics have been subverted. The articulation of new concepts for this proposal which is perhaps one of the greatest geniuses of mankind has shown itself capable of universal regularities explain misunderstood before.
Every science has a well-established strong core concept, theorizes how the epistemologist Hungarian Imre Lakatos. Within this conceptual core, the scientists of the same area usually agree on the articulation of concepts and relations-between-concepts. Scientific knowledge is not yet so well settled and on the outskirts of this conceptual cluster-there are always issues that are poorly made and need to be better clarified. In these regions of the periphery of knowledge where scientists often disagree, they make connections between different concepts and their relations not being able to discuss or agree on certain particular cases [6]. Sometimes, some overly creative individual is able to penetrate the core concept of a scientific discipline and to show by arguments and predictions, it is incorrect, incomplete or poorly described. According to Thomas Kuhn, Einstein was able to question the concepts of mass and strength in Newton, transforming them in a way that changed the whole physical science, the most classic of scientific revolutions in the history of mankind. Einsteinian revolution was a conceptual revolution.
To confirm this idea I believe is still possible to generalize these considerations a little more and say that the whole world view is different for each different intelligence on our planet. Every human being has had a formal contact with the knowledge and practical contact with him. Every human being verified for himself the truth of statements like "the sun rises every day" or "the bus is 8:30" or "you can get robbed in Belo Horizonte" and know how to behave towards them: maybe the coach not so punctual, that is only off on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Every human being has a cosmogony itself, and will have throughout his life and learned about natural rules will probably a proper idea of \u200b\u200bhow the universe was created and explain it to know that you quenquer question about it. There are many scientists and science as there are many worlds as there are living beings. Each cluster-concept of each individual is unique and although many ultimate causes may be common to those living in the same universe, a single company-Christian heritage of the West, there is also much diversity within this and other cultural groups of humans. This diversity of world views only enriches the human experience. And if globalization somehow diminishes the diversity unfortunately doing all to see under the paradigm of modern times - it is possible stating that if she "steals" ideas of the original cultures and world views of diverse and contribute to forming a conceptual framework (meme) of mankind richer. If preservássemos more different cultures rather than pluck them and destroy them would certainly be able to build a set of worldviews even broader and more efficient to explain the surreality of the experience of being alive and discussing all these issues.
===
[1] I really believe - a kick - that the universe has much more order in it than any day we can conceive. I emphasize this point further limitation of our problems cognitive and computational than the infinity of the universe.
[2] In my area of \u200b\u200bacademic specialty - molecular evolution - for example, there is the eternal fight against the so-called neutralist selectionist. The former believe that most of the variations in DNA sequences found in organisms are adaptive and are there for checking the body which has a greater adaptation to the environment. Already neutralists suggest that most mutations in the DNA is neutral and does not cause any effect on the macro body [3]. Other dichotomies in evolutionary biology can be cited: x saltationism gradualism. Other concepts, like biological species, are so complex and so have been designed this way or that, which today consist of multiple-concepts are not necessarily consistent. The definition of species in bacteria is quite different from the definition of species in sexual organisms large, for example. Maybe it's time just to break this dichotomy, and invent other terms to define one or other event. Thus, the conceptualization underlying the advancement of scientific knowledge. The scientist conceptualizes, defines dichotomies, test them against nature and, if reasonably satisfactory to class division, will be specializing in a knowledge of descriptive and other class. The natural world is still completely unknown to us and that is why there is room for as many as there are scientists who really want and strive to discover and catalog the wonder of nature.
[3] neutralists we base their argument on the well-known fact that the genetic code is degenerate. Different DNA sequences give rise to the same protein, the protein molecules are "more important" for the characterization of phenotypes.
[4] Police speaking, this is disinformation generated by the media to hide the great political scandals and the big names and the wars, the manipulation of information that happens in the world becomes more diffuse concepts for many individuals who fail to understand regularities due to the exclusion manipulation and false concepts made by the media elites.
[5] See the example of genetics in Russia at the time of Lysenko.
[6] Today, the study of evolution of genes there are certain concepts known as paralogy or orthology that are traditionally difficult to be respected and there is much discussion within the science of what they actually mean. I believe that this difficulty is directly related to a theoretical problem in understanding the evolution of genes.
0 comments:
Post a Comment