--- In Dan Dugan <> wrote:
>
> Justin, you wrote,
>
> > Sounds like the quanititative vrs qualitative problem. Seems that
> > animals experience the qualities of the sounds as significant
> > whereas the scientists are still holding the idea that quantity is
> > more real than quality. Perhaps the answer lies in creating a system =
> > of research/recording data, from a perspective which is meaningful
> > to the subjects. If the scientists are so far not understanding the =
> > reality of the situation, due to reducing the reality to db
> > readings, perhaps rather than find how to express the reality in
> > their quantitative paradigm, there might be a way to redesign the
> > whole approach/paradigm to better suit the reality being researched.
>
> Exactly, but still quantitative! Good science is measuring what's
> significant, not what's convenient.
Hi Dan
I was meaning what was significant, but from the perspective of the subject=
s. i don't have a clear idea of how the findings could be presented, but wh=
at I was more thinking was how to actually understand what is going on. I t=
hought a Goethean method of researching could bring a lot of understanding =
as to what is actually going on. in my experience it this method can reveal=
things very unexpected that may never be searched for from an analytical a=
pproach. Once one understands what is going on, I there should be no harm i=
n then expressing that in quantitative language if that is possible (and us=
eful). I think a lot of discoveries took this route actually, theories bein=
g suddenly "realised" intuitively, and after that the "logical steps" fille=
d in to make a proof. Often it is then taught (in my school anyway) that th=
e problem was "worked out" by this logical method, to try to give us faith =
in that more linear approach.
>
> > I had some exposure to the scientific method of Johann Wolfgang von =
> > Goethe. [...]
> Dressed up, but what they're about is Rudolf Steiner's "spiritual
> science."
I am not so familiar with Steiner's work, though I know he popularised Goet=
he's science. I came across Goethe's science from another route, studying u=
nder the biologist Brian Goodwin (author of How the Leopard Changed Its Spo=
ts : The Evolution of Complexity, Signs of Life: How Complexity Pervades Bi=
ology, and Nature's Due: Healing Our Fragmented Culture) and Ecologist/Gaia=
theorist Stephan Harding (co-author of Animate Earth: Science, Intuition, =
And Gaia).
Another of my teachers, physicist Henri Bortoft wrote an excellant book on =
the subject which I highly recommend, "The Wholeness of Nature, Goethe's Wa=
y of Science":
http://www.amazon.com/Wholeness-Nature-Henri-Bortoft/dp/0863152384/ref=3Dsr=
_1_1?ie=3DUTF8&s=3Dbooks&qid=3D1237249306&sr=3D1-1
Had I only read about it, I may have remained sceptical. What made me reall=
y appreciate it was actually doing it. The value of the approach, as I see =
it, is not so much in the data that it produces (which I presume is the fru=
it of the analytical approach) but in the experience it brings one to. To d=
irectly (or at the very least "more directly") understand phenomena. This i=
s a deeper, experiential understanding. This of course can bring useful dat=
a too. But the aim is not so much in usefulness, but more simply in just se=
eing things from their own side.
But I do understand that this is somewhat taboo in today's science. Brian h=
as done a lot to try to convince the scientific community of the validity o=
f qualitative studies, presenting information in a rigorously scientific ma=
nner, but many scientists simply reject the idea, not because of any logica=
l or scientific faults, but simply because they have some ingrained distrus=
t of the qualitative - perhaps like you Bernie they were taught from day on=
e that the qualitative is simply invalid, and so even when the qualitative =
can be rigorously proved to be scientifically valid, they just can't accept=
it. Also not just qualitative but as Goethean science employs the intuitio=
n, it is taboo I suppose, even though intuition has played a crucial role i=
n mainstream science too. The difference is that intuition is more delibera=
tely used and even trained in this approach.
In Brian Goodwin's words "I believe that there is a whole scientific method=
ology that needs to be developed on the basis of what is called the intuiti=
ve way of knowing. It's not something that's vaguely subjective and artisti=
c, it's a definite way of knowing the world. In fact, it's absolutely essen=
tial to creative science. All the great scientists, Einstein, Feynman, you =
name them, would say intuition is the way they arrived at their basic insig=
hts, their new ways of putting parts together into coherent wholes. The fam=
ous guys are allowed to say this. The rest of us have to pretend that we're=
really basing everything on hard fact, proceeding to generalize by inducti=
on as Francis Bacon told us to, not seeing a new whole intuitively. What re=
ally interests me is the possibility of systematically cultivating this way=
of knowing." [...] "Goethe developed ways of cultivating intuitive, holist=
ic knowledge. I've tried this with students, and it works remarkably well. =
It requires going on a somewhat different journey than that pursued in pres=
ent science and deliberately include all the qualities that Galileo left ou=
t of science, including the feelings."
(Full interview here: <http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/goodwin/goodwin_p1.h=
tml> )
Sorry if this is too off-topic.
Justin
|