There is a lot of confusion as to what
learning is, and different people and agencies define it differently
at different times, so the word becomes ambiguous, but we still all
think we know what it means, so we don't question it.
It is sometimes defined as the
memorization of facts. This is fraught with difficulty, since what is
a fact in the first place. Let's just say, for the sake of argument,
that there are, hard, immutable facts. They can be considered as
cerebral points. All you have to do to 'know' them is remember where
you left them – simple recall – worms can do it, i.e., it is not
a high intellectual skill, but it is what passes for education.
Sometimes 'learning' is defined as
recall of a process, which can be considered as remembering how the
aforementioned points are joined up. Here, we're looking at higher
order skills, in the sense that causal chains are involved, but is
specific only to that process. Again, however, it is simple recall
and is habitual.
My definition of learning is when we
see the commonality between processes that are quite disparate in
nature, but all of which, when viewed through the lens of this
intellectual paradigm are identical. One might call this intellectual
paradigm, reason, but there are many different forms of reason and
logic – all you have to do is to look at how other cultures go
about the same social phenomena to see that. Furthermore, and more
importantly, an intellectual paradigm is a web of reason whose nodal
points are not the hard, immutable facts mentioned above, but change
with the phenomenon under investigation. In this sense, it is like a
template that you put onto the data and a conclusion presents itself.
The template will ignore some data as irrelevant, but an assumption
checker is part of the paradigm, and if the ignored data turns out to
be relevant, then the paradigm evolves. Therein genius resides, I
think. There seems to be a commonality between the processes that
historically have led to intellectual events that have caused global
paradigm shifts and it is very simple. They all seem to be syllogisms
of two intellectual paradigms, e.g., General Relativity links the
four dimensional geometry of Riemann Space with three dimensional
Euclidean Geometry and time.
One doesn't learn facts, one learns
intellectual paradigms, i.e. one learns to think and it is what state
schools in England have failed to do, since the abolition of state
grammar schools.
There is also individual resistance to
this form of learning, because sometimes the conclusions presented
are uncomfortable and go against individuals' emotional biases and
therefore a more comfortable world view. Learning, as defined here
takes care of that, since it implies a striving for the truth and the
detachment from bias. In this sense, discovering that one has been in
error, is a matter of joy, since one is then no longer in error.
Here, we have the difficulty that society puts on admitting error,
and some societies, I've noticed are worse than others. Without it,
however, we are stuck in a web of fallacy; true fallacies are those
things that we accept as true simply because they are often repeated.
This is why advertising works, politicians get elected and newspapers
sell.
No comments:
Post a Comment