Taking Social Theories to the People

[coberst]

Taking Social Theories to the People

 

New theories in the natural sciences are quickly integrated into our society because these theories often lead to new business practices that put money into our pockets. Such is not the case with new discoveries in the human sciences.

 

New theories in the human sciences often take generations to trickle down to Tom and Jane because Tom and Jane pick up these new ideas normally through a process of social osmosis. Such new theories are not generally taught in our schools.

 

Our educational system prepares us to become good producers and consumers. However, in the name of efficiency, our educational system leaves us ignorant of many domains of knowledge that are vital to our comprehension of matters that seriously affect the political health of our culture and of the world. Cognitive science is just one example of such a domain.

 

Popularizer is a word I heard historian William Norton Smith use when discussing American Presidents on C-Span. He did not elaborate significantly but it was apparent to me that he used the word to describe individuals who make popular the theories of authors who write about significant concepts that are seldom disseminated throughout the public educational system.

 

Mr. Smith and I agree that it is essential that someone carry to the people these vital concepts that I mention. I think of myself as being a popularizer. I try to introduce to my readers new and important ideas recently introduced to the world by the human sciences.

 

Do you have any desire to be a popularizer?

 

Isn’t the Internet discussion forum an ideal medium for popularizers to perform their function?

[Tormod]

A popularizer would be anyone who makes simple explanations of advanced models, and communicates these to others using methods like teaching, presentations, etc in various media.

 

When it comes to "human science" I am not sure I understand what you mean here. You claim that it is not taught in our schools, and that it takes generations to "trickle down". But *what* is it that takes generations to trickle down? If it takes two generations for knowledge to go from your grandfather to you, then that knowledge has crossed a huge time span as far as culture and communication is concerned.

 

Exactly what sort of human science are you thinking of, and what do you suggest to do about it? Can you give an example of a discovery in human science that has taken "generations" to be accepted, and can you point to a recent discovery that is not being distributed?

 

I thought Hypography and similare forums already *was* a place to present popularized versions of science and philosophy. That has always been the intention, at least. :)

[belovelife]

I agree with that function of the internet. The need to constantly upgrade whatever science you are in.(which is funimental to science) In practice, it is always happening, we are "up to the minute", so to speak. Living in this level of idea transfer has accelerated our knowlede as the human species. Since the term, "up to the minute" was coined, to the present day availibility of digital communication, all sciences have flourished. This has also lead to many debates, backtracking, and rewriting of all the different sciences.

One day you could think it is impossible to transfer data with the spin on an electron, the next you learn it is done all the time. In effect, we are constantly upgrading science, through forums, blogs, video seminars, etc.

[Tormod]

In effect, we are constantly upgrading science, through forums, blogs, video seminars, etc.

 

I would argue that we are adding to the collective information pool, but not to "science" as such. But we do make it easier for anyone with access to the web to find that information.

[coberst]

I would include in the human sciences such matters as cognitive science, psychology, Critical Thinking, art theory, history, anthropology, and sociology.

 

I think that it is worth while to think of comprehension as being like a pyramid with awareness at the base followed by consciousness. Consciousness I define as awareness with conscious focus. Following consciousness would be knowledge and following that is understanding. I would say that understanding is the creation of meaning and is a long step beyond knowing.

 

Every journey begins with the first step and I would say the first step to comprehension is awareness, which can be quickly followed by consciousness.

 

I think that the introduction of a theory or perhaps an idea to someone who has had no contact with that idea is perhaps the first two steps to knowing and perhaps understanding at some time in the future.

 

If the first step is not taken then no comprehension is possible.

 

 

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Margaret Mead/

[coberst]

As my role model of an ideal popularizer I imagine Socrates with a PC and the Internet.