Can we know only what we are prepared to know?

[coberst]

Can we know only what we are prepared to know?

If an individual has never learned to add and subtract that individual cannot learn how to divide and multiply.

Our American educational system, K-12, attempts to teach minimum fundamentals that prepare an individual to function within our high tech society. Our colleges and universities generally augment these fundamentals with some form of specialized knowledge that will make it possible for graduates to obtain good jobs.

Few graduates from our American educational system are prepared to comprehend the very complex type of problems our society encounters. In a democracy such as ours the citizens can choose the politicians to act as their representatives in government. In a democracy such as ours the citizen can veto any public policy that they do not comprehend even though it might be necessary for the survival of the American culture and perhaps even of the survival of the human species.

Under such circumstances is a democratic form of government adequate?

If not what form of government is adequate?

Is it possible for us to educate citizens to the higher level of sophistication that is required to manage a sophisticated high tech society such as ours?

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by coberst

Can we know only what we are prepared to know?

I am prepared to know that.

Do you ever notice that when you lean a new concept or word, you might see it again maybe three times in just a couple of days?
So what have you been missing seeing up to this point?

If an individual has never learned to add and subtract that individual cannot learn how to divide and multiply.

Our American educational system, K-12, attempts to teach minimum fundamentals that prepare an individual to function within our high tech society. Our colleges and universities generally augment these fundamentals with some form of specialized knowledge that will make it possible for graduates to obtain good jobs.

So they don't worry about an eduction then?

Few graduates from our American educational system are prepared to comprehend the very complex type of problems our society encounters.

Assumption, unsupported

In a democracy such as ours the citizens can choose the politicians to act as their representatives in government. In a democracy such as ours the citizen can veto any public policy that they do not comprehend even though it might be necessary for the survival of the American culture and perhaps even of the survival of the human species.

Under such circumstances is a democratic form of government adequate?

Yes
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government
except all the others that have been tried.”
Winston Churchill (British Orator, Author and Prime Minister during World War II. 1874-1965)
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”
Winston Churchill

You should really try to see the rare British movie The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer (Peter Cook) where democracy it taken to its quintessence. Amazon UK have it.

Is it possible for us to educate citizens to the higher level of sophistication that is required to manage a sophisticated high tech society such as ours

Yes, if we want to spend the money.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

I am prepared to know that.

Do you ever notice that when you lean a new concept or word, you might see it again maybe three times in just a couple of days?

:

I claim that comprehending is a hierarchy and can usefully be thought of as a pyramid. At the base of the pyramid is awareness that is followed by consciousness, which is awareness plus attention. Knowing follows consciousness and understanding is at the pinnacle of the pyramid.

Two aspects of this comprehension idea deserve elaboration: consciousness and understanding.

When I was a youngster, probably seven or eight, my father took me with him when he drove to a local farm to pick corn for use in the café the family managed. We drove for a significant amount of time down local dirt roads to a farm with a field of growing corn.

We went into the fields with our bushel baskets and filled them with corn-on-the-cob. Dad showed me how to choose the corn to pick and how to snatch the cob from the stalk.

On the drive home I was amazed to observe the numerous fields of corn we passed on the way back to town. I can distinctly remember thinking to myself, why did I not see these fields of corn while we were driving to the farm earlier?

Today I have an answer to that question. I now say that on the way to the farm I was aware of corn-on-the-cob but on the way back home I was conscious of corn-on-the-cob. There was a very significant difference in my perceptions regarding corn-on-the-cob before and after the experience.

We are aware of many things but conscious of only a small number of things. We were aware of Iraq before the war but now we are conscious of Iraq. There is a very important distinction between awareness and consciousness and it is important for us to recognize this difference.

To be conscious of a matter signifies a focus of the intellect. Consciousness of a matter is the first step, which may lead to an understanding of the matter. Consciousness of a matter is a necessary condition for knowing and for understanding of that matter. Consciousness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for knowing and understanding to take place.

When discussing a topic about which I am knowledgeable most people will, because they recognize the words I am using, treat the matter as old stuff. They recognize the words therefore they consider the matter as something they already know and do not consider as important. Because they are aware of the subject it is difficult to gain their attention when I attempt to go beyond the shallowness of their perception. The communication problem seems to be initially overcoming their awareness and reaching consciousness.

Understanding is a long step beyond knowing. Understanding is the creation of meaning. Understanding represents a rare instance when intellection and emotion join hands and places me in an empathetic position with a domain of knowledge. When I understand I have connected the dots and have created a unity that includes myself. I have created something that is meaningful, which means that I have placed that domain of knowledge within my domain that I call my self. I understand because I have a very intimate connection with a model of reality that I have created. It is that eureka moment that happens rarely but is a moment of ecstasy. As Carl Sagan says “understanding is a kind of ecstasy”.

When I read I almost always read non fiction. I have tried to read fiction and to learn from reading what is considered to be good literature. However, my effort to read good literature fails because I thing that learning by reading good literature is a very inefficient means for gaining knowledge and understanding.

I claim that I can acquire more knowledge in one hour by reading non fiction than I can while reading good literature for ten hours. That is, I claim that learning by reading non fiction is ten times more efficient than learning by reading fiction, i.e. good literature.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by coberst

When I read I almost always read non fiction. I have tried to read fiction and to learn from reading what is considered to be good literature. However, my effort to read good literature fails because I thing that learning by reading good literature is a very inefficient means for gaining knowledge and understanding.

I claim that I can acquire more knowledge in one hour by reading non fiction than I can while reading good literature for ten hours. That is, I claim that learning by reading non fiction is ten times more efficient than learning by reading fiction, i.e. good literature.

i disagrre here
My wife, a literature graduate, knows far more about people, and what motivates them and is a far better and quicker, judge of charter than I ,a psychology greadute. sShe also has amzing langauge knowleger and skills.
I think some books can give you insigts that no research paper or non fiction can.
Some books are just fun to raed. I read alot of non-fiction, but ofen need to stop and read fiction for a while. iI get more joy from that and it calms me --almost a little like meditaion
If read a non-fiction book before bed I wake up, a fiction book calms my mind, takes it to a differnt place and i can sleep.
Terrypratchett has wonderful insigts into the human condition often couched in humour. insights i doubt you would get as clearly and sucinly expressed anywhere else. He is a most underrated commentator on the human condition.

[coberst]

I am convinced that we cannot "see" that which we are not prepared to "see"; metaphor ‘know is see’.

It is like walking in a forest such that we are unable to see very far because the trees restrict our view. We can use the analogy of walking in the forest, which to see beyond the surrounding trees we must have the means to climb a tall tree to see a bit further.

Perhaps we might extend the analogy to say that we must have some means to raise our self above the surrounding clutter before we can see a bit further. Only when we find a hill with tall trees and climb one of those trees can we see the mountain ahead, which we might climb and see a mountain range in the distance, which we might travel too so that we can see even further. But as long as we do not climb some trees we cannot see beyond the mundane appearances of our little world of trees that surround us.

[Michaelangelica]

I'd go along with that.

Define "forest"

I find it hard to get my head around this
Our place in the Universe! Relative Size: Earth, Other Planets, the Sun and the Stars
And that is only apart of the universe.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

I'd go along with that.

Define "forest"

I find it hard to get my head around this
Our place in the Universe! Relative Size: Earth, Other Planets, the Sun and the Stars
And that is only apart of the universe.

Forest has lots of trees.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by coberst

Forest has lots of trees.

LOL
Tall ones?
Do you have stilts?

We are limited by our biology, not just our education and socilaistion. (& technology?)
I think bees have better vison than we have, dogs better smell, cats better everything- including night vison, for example.

Next to the note of your post on my mail programme
was

Press Release 09-055
"How Professors Think"

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...ovDel=USNSF_51
it looks like you have to read the book, to find out, unfortuntely.

[Theory5]

Can we know only what we are prepared to know?

I belive that depends on how open our minds are to new ideas. I read on a different post about a test that was done. A full deck was given to a test group. The deck had two cards that had their suits switched. People expected to see the opposite of those cards and they were confused. It took almost forty exposures until they recognized it correctly.

There are some biological limits on what some people can do and what they can grasp. People with below average IQ's (depending on how far below the average they are) will learn slower, and might not even comprehend everday activities. People with average IQ's will (are supposed to) grasp information averagly. And people with above average IQ's can grasp information faster than average and they can understand information that might be over the heads of their peers.
This does not bring into account behavior such as in that card experiment above. When people are not open to new idea's they basically cease to learn. This can happen for a couple different reasons. Take two opposites, such as a DEVOTED priest and a scientist, or a liberal and a conservitive, or any two people who view everything differently and present them with a situation.
For example, (this is just an example and has no hidden implications), if you take a devoted priest and a scientist and ask them what lightning is they will probably give two different answers. The priest will probably say something along the lines of "gods work", while the scientist will explain how lightning is caused by friction. Now try to explain to the priest that it is a force of nature and it struck where it did because of all the factors that come into play because of the planet we are on. He will respond with stuff about how it was god's will and science is a test of faith, etc. etc. And vice versa with the scienctist.
The priest will walk away having learned nothing. The scientist will respond that he will belive in god when he receives proof of god and he files that "knowlege" away for later.
From this we can deduct that the priest has a closed mind, while the scientist has an open mind, because he takes in knowlege and stores it even if it does not agree with his beliefs.

What i use to expand my mind so I know i am always open is science fiction games, movies, and books. I find that some have such outlandish idea's that are still based on science.
There are many factors that affect human learning. Some people learn only when they see a direct pay-off, like when you start training a dog. Usually you need to show the dog the treat and make him understand he will recieve the treat if he does what you say. If he doesnt understand that he will not do what you want.

[jedaisoul]

The word "prepared" in the title is potentially ambiguous. I suspect it was meant in the sense "are open to". So the question becomes "Can we know only what we are open to know?". In that sense I agree with the sentiment, but find it trivial. Of course we can only know that which we are open to. That's what being open to it means.

On the other hand, colloqually, it could mean "want". So the question becomes "Can we know only what we want to know?". In that sense, I disagree. There are many things that I know that were forced upon my consciousness by external events. Like trivia. On the other hand there are many things that I want to know that are closed to me. Like tensor calculus. My wishes in the matter are of scant regard.

A sense in which I would agree with the title is if "prepared" is interpreted as "equipped". So the question becomes "Can we know only what we are equipped to know?". Being equipped to know something implies that we understand the concepts behind the words in which that knowledge is conveyed. This is partially a matter of inate ability, but also very much a matter of grasping the concepts. This is meaningful, and focusses attention on the point that merely knowing the words may not equip us to understand the meaning.

However, if that was the intended meaning, I do not see the connection with the content of the post. So what does the title mean in the context of the overall post?