Discussion issues of the cognition process - History...

Discussion of the process of cognition

By organizing and adjusting the cognitive process, the teacher needs a thorough knowledge. He is always accompanied by the danger of being in the snare of some dogmas. In this regard, we decided to pay special attention to some discussion issues.

1. On the imaginary opposite of feelings and thoughts. The widespread opposition of feelings and thoughts is untenable. We will try to substantiate this situation. It has been repeatedly emphasized above that man is a conceptual being. He operates with concepts that make up the meaning of any of his activities. The concept itself exists in three forms: object, language and mental. In the most elementary form, these three forms are represented respectively in the object domain - attributes of objects, in language - by predicates, in mentality - by mentals. All the objective is reduced to attributes, the language is exhausted by predicates, the mental contains mentalals. It is extremely important to understand that by reasoning about attributes, predicates and mentals, one must always be guided by the content of the corresponding theories. Otherwise, it will not receive its own truly human expression. conceptual. It is wrong to first assert something, for example the opposite of feelings and thoughts, and then seek confirmation of what has been said and written in theories.

Assume that the theory includes the concepts a, b and c. Their mental correlates will be respectively a m, b m and c m. In keeping with the conceptual caution, we call a m, b m and with m mentals. Proponents of the opposition of feelings and thoughts believe that each of the mentals forks. On the one hand, there is, for example, a m sensory ( a mh), and on the other hand - a mm). But in theory there are no signs of a split concept. The splitting of the mentals into their supposedly existing sensory and mental forms, in fact, leads beyond the theories, which is unacceptable. That's why there is no need to distinguish between feelings and thoughts. Enough ideas about the mentals.

Why is the discrimination of feelings and thoughts recognized by an absolute majority of scientists? The roots of this approach are found in the history of the development of knowledge. Since Antiquity, the nature of mentality was discussed without having developed a theory on this score. In the hustle and bustle of ideas, the idea of ​​the reality of feelings and thoughts was born. Often used this argument: a person has senses, thanks to them he operates with feelings. Then, abstracting from some non-essential features of feelings, people come to a rational, abstract, which, in turn, is subject to thinking. Thus, knowledge seems to rise from sensory contemplation to abstract thinking. But, as explained earlier, the development of knowledge acts as a conceptual transduction. And there is no transition from feelings to thoughts. There is a transition from principles to laws, from them to facts, measurement results, etc.

In an effort to clarify the situation with the sensual and mental, it would be nice to find support from any authority. In connection with this, the work of the German philosopher-phenomenologist E. Husserl draws attention. He believed that concepts are the result of not the abstractions, but the synthesis of experiences. The result of this synthesis he called eidos. Eidos - the term of ancient Greek philosophy, literally meaning a concrete image of something. Husserl's innovation consisted in an emphasis on the sensuous, which other authors subjected to the abstract, rational.

The problem of the same researcher was the desire to follow up with his opponents attempts to form concepts, considering the original sensory material and postulating some form of its processing through syntheses. The very structure of the sciences was ignored. As we see, Husserl remained within the framework of speculative views. Nevertheless, he at least questioned the dogma of opposing feelings and thoughts, sensory and rational. Getting rid of this dogma has the most urgent didactic significance. The cognitive process must be freed from alien impurities.

Teaching recommendations

Operate with those concepts that are part of scientific theories. In doing so, you consider everything that deserves your attention. Contrasting feelings with thoughts, you do not explain the situation, but, on the contrary, cloud it.

2. On the imaginary mystery of intuition. The concept of intuition also causes great controversy. Some people praise him in every way, but others do not like him. In science, intuition is usually understood as directly unconsciously obtained knowledge. But is such knowledge possible? From the standpoint of conceptual transduction, any knowledge in one way or another must be built into it. This means that it is explained in a certain way, it is explicated. Every phenomenon is known by a certain theory. Outside the theory, there is no cognition. And knowledge by means of the theory is somehow explained, i.e. is mediated. It is this circumstance that is misunderstood by intuitivists, including, perhaps, the most famous of them - the French philosopher A. Bergson. Intuitionists, in our opinion, always underestimate the institution of science.

Along with intuitionists, there are so-called intuitionists, for example, the famous Dutch mathematician L. Brauer and the distinguished English ethic J. Moore. Intuitionists advocate the institution of science. But they believe that the initial links of the scientific theory can not be explained. Without resorting to intuition, one understands what is in the depth of the theory, but not its beginning, for example, the axioms of mathematics or the principles of ethics. Alas, intuitionists are also mistaken. The beginning of the theory is constantly being revised. Why? Because their insufficiency is revealed. Researchers compare the merits and demerits of competing theories. The process of such a comparison is subjected to all parts of the theory, both the initial, and the middle and final. Thus, the choice of the beginning of the theory is not a one-step act.

Very often in support of the concept of intuition, they refer to scientific discoveries, arguing that they occur spontaneously, in an inexplicable way. When Einstein was asked about the invention of the special theory of relativity, he answered in one word: "I guessed!" His answer was interpreted by many people as follows: suddenly there comes an insight, and this act is intuitive. In fact, discovery is the fruit of great effort. The aforementioned discovery by Einstein consisted in proposing that physical interactions can not propagate faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. It allowed to explain the results of numerous electrodynamic experiments without contradiction. From a scientific point of view, Einstein reasoned very consistently. In the framework of the existing theory, the results of the experiments can not be explained. But if we assume that interactions do not propagate at a speed greater than the speed of light in a vacuum, then these results can be explained consistently. Therefore, this assumption must be considered a postulate of physical theory. As we see, Einstein's discovery is explained. It is not a momentary inexplicable act. All scientific discoveries are the result of not instantaneous insight, but of long-term, purposeful searches.

3. About the imaginary reality of implicit knowledge. This question was considered in a critical manner in paragraph 4.4. The reader is strongly encouraged to carefully study its content.

4. On the non-critical understanding of scientific concepts as abstractions and idealizations - see paragraph 1.11.

5. On the imaginary necessity of irrational knowledge - see paragraph 4.4.

6. On the imaginary necessity of going beyond science. In science, any position is placed under the fire of criticism. Of course, some scientists "cling to" For their discoveries, trying to protect them from criticism. They will certainly meet with the resistance of their colleagues. The history of the development of science shows that, unlike criticism, apologetics to science is contraindicated. Of course, it must be taken into account that scientific criticism is not indiscriminate. It is recognized as solvent only if it contributes to the progress of knowledge.

Along with scientific criticism, there is also criticism of science. It is based on a provision according to which there is knowledge more relevant than science. It seems that critics of science oppose dogmatism. In fact, they just misunderstand the status of science. Science is an institution that is based on the commitment to certainly cultivate advanced knowledge. It, by definition, must include advanced knowledge in its content. Physicists new knowledge after its appropriate critical consideration will include physics. Also psychologists will come with a new psychological knowledge, and teachers - with innovative pedagogical knowledge. In fact, it turns out that according to the degree of relevance, scientific knowledge knows no equal. The scientist, including the teacher, in his attitude to the various types of knowledge should be properly selective, opposing the demonization of science.

Conclusions

1. Researchers who do not bother with a detailed conceptual analysis often adhere to dogmas, some of which have a long history.

2. Any knowledge should be placed under the fire of scientific criticism.

3. It is inadmissible both the apologetics of outdated scientific knowledge and the demonization of science.

thematic pictures

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)