I posted this in another thread but It was a side issue in a way. I would really like to have this conversation so I'm going to post it on it's own here. The issue is 1. the ways in which one acquires knowledge 2. whether or not verifiability constitutes "proof" 3. can a person be considered an expert on Priori knowledge 4. what factors compromise reasoning 5. and any other issues implied by the evidence
Now I took this information, mainly, from a talk given at UCBerkely by Danial Kahneman. The subject is expert intuition, the talk is titled "The illusion of Validity".
First the distinction must be made between the two systems of knowledge acquisition. System 1 is Intuition (sys1), System 2 is Reasoning (sys2) sys1 is Fast, sys2 is Slow sys1 is Automatic/Involuntary, sys2 is Controlled/Voluntary sys1 is Slow-learning, sys2 is Flexible sys1 is Associative, sys2 is Rule-governed sys1 is Effortless, sys2 is Effortful sys1 is Something that happens to us, sys2 is Something that we do
Now one other interesting fact is that sys2 monitors sys1. If the monitoring is interrupted - SYS2 IS COMPROMISED, not sys1! I thought that was incredibly fascinating.
Now what to we mean by "proof" and also verifiability. Posteriori or Priori knowledge? Using Deductive or Inductive reasoning? Because if we mean, for instance, posteriori knowledge of a "topic" using deductive reasoning, were speaking about Objective truth as it pertains to a Subject. If we mean priori knowledge of a "topic" using inductive reasoning, were talking about Subjective truth as it pertains to an Object. Does verifiability mean "test-able", or "able to be experienced"
I will also relate the two stories/examples he gave: The first was a story about a Fire Chief. The crew of fireman was all on a roof fighting a fire. Suddenly, and it seems out of nowhere, the Chief loudly commands everyone get off the roof immediately. Himself not exactly knowing why at the moment. No sooner had the crew gotten off of the roof, when the roof collapsed. Now having been interviewed by a psychologist afterward they found that actually the fire chief had a signifier on which to base his intuition. They found that moments before he acted, the chief's feet warmed considerably. Thus indicating that there was fire beneath the crew, a very dangerous situation. He acted without actually cognitively noticing the signifier (reasoning), only acting on intuition. That would be an argument FOR, and one of the many examples of, expert intuition. The second story was an account from his own experience in the Israeli military. His job was to evaluate soldiers while they performed complex actions in a group setting on a obstacle course. In short, they were in groups of 8 and were to solve a complex problem as a group. The problem was getting a 20ft pole over a 15ft wall, and all 8 soldiers, without touching the pole to the ground or wall. He never mentioned by the way how they actually did that, I have wondered believe me. Now his job was to watch the group and evaluate each soldiers innate abilities based on observations of interactions within the group. Who lead, who followed. Who contributed, who was singled out etcetera. Based on their "expert" observations they gave recommendations as to their assignment within a regiment. It was assumed that based on observations in this context by "experts" they would be able to infer the translation to the actual battlefield. Who would be the leaders etcetera. And actually it turned out they were not able to do that. And in fact it turned out they had no idea how it would actually translate. In fact a very simple set of algorithms, based on only a few variables, out performed the "experts" every time. But as he remarked, it's the military, so the next day 8 more perform the obstacle course. (You should have laughed at that by the way) That would be an argument AGAINST, and one of the many examples of expert intuition loosing out to basic reasoning.
So what do you all think?
-------------------- Principles of acceptance * People do not progress by being questioned, they progress by questioning themselves. * When ready for the answer, people will come to the question of themselves.
|