the following paper by John R Platt


“Why should there be such rapid advances in some fields and not in others? I think the usual explanations that we tend to think of – such as the tractability of the subject, or the quality or education of the men drawn into it, or the size of research contracts – are important but inadequate. I have begun to believe that the primary factor in scientific advance is an intellectual one. These rapidly moving fields are fields where a particular method of doing scientific research is systematically used and taught, an accumulative method of inductive inference that is so effective that I think it should be given the name of “strong inference.” I believe it is important to examine this method, its use and history and rationale, and to see whether other groups and individuals might learn to adopt it profitably in their own scientific and intellectual work. “

“When whole groups of us begin to concentrate like that, I believe we may see the molecular-biology phenomenon repeated over and over again, with order-of-magnitude increases in the rate of scientific understanding in almost every field.”

Or the following paper by Paul Grobstein

“People in our culture, by and large, tend to presume that someone, somewhere knows what is “right,” and that each individual’s task is either to be that particular someone or to work as hard as they can to learn from that someone what “right” is … the mindset long predates science as a social activity, but …science certainly encourages it, and so it is appropriate that science should contribute to correcting it … In an enormous variety of distinct fields of inquiry the same general pattern is becoming clear: there is no such thing as “right,” the very concept needs to be replaced with “progressively less wrong.” The

difference is far from semantic. “Right” is measured by proximity to some fixed idea, “progressively less wrong” by how far people have gotten from where they started.”

What they are talking about is bottom up thinking. There is a built in logic flaw in (most) people’s brain. I call it the brain fart. This flaw prevents people from understanding that what we see is only our perception of reality. It is not reality. It is how our mind makes sense of reality. The perspective doesn’t matter yin/yang, top down/bottom up, reductionist/constructivist etc. These are all inside the skull. In nature, this duality does not exist, it just is.

So what’s happening? We have two cognitive minds, each with it’s own perception.

I’ll try yin/yang.

Yin (plural) are the right minds possible interpretations as determined by processing through a parallel weighted Boolean network. AKA bottom up, constructivist, female, connectedness

Yang (singular) is the left minds interpretation as determined by processing through a serial binary network. AKA top down, reductionist, male, individuation

Taiji (balance) is achieved when the outputs of the two processes are not inconsistent. AKA centering

in the west, the yang is dominant, the Aristotelian brain fart (social imprinting)

in the east, the yin is dominant, the Taoist brain fart (cultural imprinting)

I can’t get it any simpler than that.

Inclusional DataMining pTruthnTruth Multiplism Thoughts Idiots

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: