Three levels of scientific (or not so scientific) discussion

[aaro]

Hi All,

Discussions in this group have made me to think over some things and to recognize my profound limitations I would like to share with you. There is one interesting theory by Eleanor Roosevelt which seems to apply also to the scientific discussions. I will paraphrase and elaborate this theory.

First, there are true scientists, nearly-omniscient, nearly-omnipotents, nearly omnipresent too (I am not sure about the latter)

These people discuss other people. The arguments used by them are the most powerful possible, these are called argumentum ad hominem. Examples of the arguments used at that level are: "you are no scientist" "you know nearly nothing" "you demonstrate near total ignorance" etc. All such arguments are indisputable truths because they are true.

Personally, I have to admit that this level of scientific discussion is far beyond my level, I simply do not understand it. I obviously belong to much lower level of intellectual hierarchy (see below). Here I also must correct one mistake. I graded very highly at this level at least once. I used personal arguments (against myself): "I do not feel that evaluative statements and expressions are helpful in developing a constructive discussion. I can only blame myself in all this because I have given too many red herrings, made jokes (e.g. I suggested that introspection can be a valuable scientific tool), I know "next-to-nothing" of the field and demonstrate near total ignorance, I am no scientist, etc"

I got a very high grade for this statement; the Master said: "Aaro, you are right" (You see obviously, the grading was at the personal level, it was me--Aaro--who was right!) Unfortunately, I have to admit, I got this high grade by cheating. I thought that my statement belongs to a class of ideas (see below, it is the lowest class of arguments, practically meaningless)--the idea called "irony" was behind my statement. So, unfortunately my grade should be lowered to the lowest possible, that of ideas.

Second, there are mediocre scientists who discuss events.

Events, as we all know, are reported by different news agencies such as BBC or CNN. We see reports of events at that level of analysis. For instance, some idea is good if there is a hope, that it will be reported in news: "But i hope that in a few years time CNN and the rest of the world- media will flock to Estonia to report on Aaro’s “psychic ability- machine”"

This level of discussion, even though less intelligent than the previous, personal level, is still characterized by impeccable logic. For instance, the logical rule is followed: some B-s are A. Therefore all B-s are A. Or, more specifically, if sometimes it has been possible to construct de novo a particular psychological process then it is always possible. Thus, if something is not  always possible, then it is impossible: "In some patients the rehabilitation programme just will not work!" says the expert at that level of discussion.

There are other very powerful logical tools available at that level of discussion. Another logical tool has the following structure: "some ideas have not been expressed in all works of some author. Therefore these ideas have not been successful" For instance, if Luria did not write everything he had accomplished in some books it follows that these ideas were not successful. Of course, if a person has a good idea, then this idea is expressed in all his or her writings. This is why all scientific books by the same author are always cumulative, every next book contains all the 'successful' ideas plus some new ones. If there are no new ideas, then the title might be different, and perhaps also the wording, but the ideas are identical to the previously published books. 

Corollary 1: X does not know that L exists. Therefore L does not exist. For instance, X knows that Luria's works on neuropsychological rehabilitation have not been published in English. Therefore the following publications do not exist: Luria, A. R. (1963). Restoration of function after brain injury. Pergamon Press. Luria, A. R. (1970) Traumatic aphasia. Its syndromes, psychology, and treatment. Mouton de Gruyter.

Finally, at the third, and intellectually lowest level of discussion there are scientists who are actually non-scientist; they know next-to-nothing and demonstrate near total ignorance.

At that level ideas are discussed. At the level of ideas, it is not necessary, for instance, to read the whole book to be sure that it is written in language the reader does not understand. It is not also necessary to all particulars of some theory if the fundamental problems of it can be recognized. There are other symptoms peculiar to that level, but these are not necessary to know because the lack of personal and event-level information is already sufficient for the diagnosis.

This level is the level that is available to my primitive mind and I have tried to develop discussion at that level only (it is only by cheating some of my ideas may look like belonging to the higher levels; the sad truth is that these highest levels are not available to me).

For some moments I got an impression that discussions in this list are clearly out of my league. I simply cannot understand the higher level arguments; even when I can recognize the beauty and undisputable power of them.  Then I found that there are some primitive people still trying to make their point at the level of ideas too (sorry Paul, you did very bad on events and people's level with your recent contributions to this list; there have been some others also).

So, I ask for forgivness and recognition of my (biological? cultural?) limitations if in future discussions I cannot achieve the high levels and stick to discussion of ideas.

Yours sincerely

Aaro