What happens to us when we learn new stuff?

I will tell you what happened to me when I learned new stuff. I assume that most people are affected in the same way.

We must use metaphors and analogies to speak about such matters. I choose as two of my metaphors the kaleidoscope and the pot of stew. World view and intuition I think of as similar terms. ‘Intuition is kaleidoscope’ and ‘intuition is stew’ are my two metaphors.

Learning new stuff is like putting a new seasoning or a new veggie in the pot of stew. Most of time the new seasoning or the new veggie has little or no effect upon the stew; sometimes a great change takes place--that new ingredient has a large effect. When the effect is large it might be like turning our kaleidoscope a notch and the intuition takes a dramatic change.

Let’s look at what happens when we examine our intuition as a result of our changing knowledge of the concept we call science.

I am a retired engineer and as a result I had a very high regard for and a very narrow comprehension of science. I considered science to be primarily a domain of knowledge encompassing matters that have as basic ingredients physics, mathematics, and chemistry. Any domain of knowledge that did not rest on the foundations of physics, math, and chemistry were of secondary or tertiary importance.

As I grew older my intuition was dramatically affected by my study of philosophy and later by my becoming what I call a self-actualizing, self-learning, and critical thinking man.

My comprehension of the meaning of the word ‘science’ changed dramatically. The dictionary has several definitions of the word ‘science’, one is--a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study. My comprehension of the meaning of science took dramatic changes; my kaleidoscope took constant turns over a 25 year period.

When I had a very narrow view of science and because I held that concept with such high regard my intuition was vitally affected as my comprehension of that concept changed. My attitude toward every other domain of knowledge was determined by my comprehension of this concept. As I grew in my comprehension of this concept my world opened up dramatically, my narrow and negative attitude toward all domains of knowledge changed tremendously.

Because I placed such great confidence and trust in science my world view, i.e. my intuition, became very unsettled. The ego is in charge of putting a check on anxiety and thus my ego fought hard against this change but my curiosity overcame my ego’s repression of these new ideas and these new ideas awakened a vast new world for exploration.



Do you agree that Joe and Jane have little comprehension of the meaning of science?

Do you agree that this narrow minded misconception is unhealthy for the United States?

"unhealthy for the United States" ?!? I will never understand this kind of nationalism :-/

Also, you might enjoy the structure of scientific revolutions by Thomas Kuhn on this topic (seeing that you didnd't mention it, I suppose you don't know about it).

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

I'd say that the vast majority of scientists themselves do not comprehend the meaning of science nor the epistemological standing of their claims.

Indeed, the Kuhn recommendation is a very good one.

I have spent many hours studying Kuhn. In what way do you think Kuhn is relevant here?

White Rabbit

I ask you the same question. In what way do you think Kuhn is relevant here?

Actually, my commendation of the recommendation of Kuhn's book was specifically directed at IIIX since I understand he is a student of philosophy and I wanted to show my support for his view/interpretation of Kuhn and the applicability of Kuhn's views to the topic - IIIX most certainly knows that I've studied and read Kuhn's book cited since I've referenced that title on several previous occasions.

Kuhn's book is recommended because it is all about the nature and philosophy of science. It describes the process whereby 99% of that which is called science is entirely incremental and driven by the need/desire/motive to 'defend' the 'official' paradigm.

Actual serious science really only occurs when the agreed paradigm is tossed out the window and a new one is adopted - and then they all go back to incrementalism and defending the (new) 'official' theory again.

That is the real nature of scientific advancements. It is relevant to what you have tried to describe in the OP.

I made some important corrections to your statement.

It pushes old stuff out of our brain. For instance, I once took a tour of a brewery and forgot how to drive.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Coberst, don't fuck with my words.

You want to say something - fine - say it with your own fucking words - don't ever insert your fucking words under my name.

I have a nasty temper and right now you are seriously fucking annoying me.

But you only managed to transform a correct post into a wrong one.
That science is defined as the opposite of "normal" science. As for Kuhn being only barely relevant to this topic, I mentioned him because you wrote:
Sure, my post didn't answer the questions at the end of your post. But they sounded like rhetorical questions anyway. As white rabbit wrote, it's clear that many if not most scientists don't know about the nature of science - you don't need to be a professional of epistemology to be a correct scientist, much like you don't need to be a doctor to live a long life...(although it can help).

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

You certainly get annoyed easily.

The point of Kuhn's work is to define what he calls normal science. Normal science is a science with a paradigm.

As to the OP, just say what I think on this subject. Everyone in their head has a model of reality. What happens when you learn new stuff is that you adjust/modify/update your model.

I now double-down on the recommendation of reading Kuhn.

You have clearly misunderstood Kuhn's thesis.

Not particularly suprising since you've mangled pretty much every other philosophic idea you've mentioned at this forum.

I'll agree with this.

Though, you are missing 'cognitive dissonance' - a common outcome from hearing about new information that contradicts dearly held notions.