knowing the name of a thing, and knowing a thing
Carl
neo-tech.com,
however, libertyzone.com has a good article here, with some key
definitions
and understandings:
http://www.libertyzone.com/LEZ-NeoTechZero.html
* * *
I recently had a call with someone new and intrigued by Neo-Tech.
(by the way, if you are new, I highly recommend joining NTP's official
website:
http://www.neo-techsociety.com/default2.aspx )
I've been thinking recently about how to characterize Neo-Tech
knowledge.
Discussing Neo-Tech can tend toward a fascinating intellectual dialog
on the concepts,
metaphors, and meanings. Combine this with right-brain puzzles of
"what is",
and you are delving into the essence of Neo-Tech.
I love what Feynman said about labels (names) as
distinguished from "what is".
from http://control-z.com/pgs/science_feynman.html
"I smiled to myself, because my father had already taught me that [the
name] doesn't tell me anything about the bird. He taught me "See that
bird? It's a brown-throated thrush, but in Germany it's called a
halsenflugel, and in Chinese they call it a chung ling and even if you
know all those names for it, you still know nothing about the bird-you
only know something about people; what they call that bird. Now that
thrush sings, and teaches its young to fly, and flies so many miles
away during the summer across the country, and nobody knows how it
finds its way," and so forth. There is a difference between the name
of the thing and what goes on.
"The result of this is that I cannot remember anybody's name, and when
people discuss physics with me they often are exasperated when they
say "the Fitz-Cronin effect," and I ask "What is the effect?" and I
can't remember the name.
"I would like to say a word or two-may I interrupt my little tale-
about words and definitions, because it is necessary to learn the
words.
"It is not science. That doesn't mean, just because it is not science,
that we don't have to teach the words. We are not talking about what
to teach; we are talking about what science is....
"In order to talk to each other, we have to have words, and that's all
right. It's a good idea to try to see the difference, and it's a good
idea to know when we are teaching the tools of science, such as words,
and when we are teaching science itself."
This is a great encapsulation of what it means to really know
something.
A powerful related distinction is thinking in conclusions vs. thinking
in dynamics.
(a good lead in for another topic)
Carl
neo...@gmail.com