Synthesizing Two Epistemological Orientations

[Paul Mawdsley]

Synthesizing Two Epistemological Orientations

I look through the history of philosophy and science, and I see the separation between the logical/symbolic approach to reasoning and the causal/modelling approach to reasoning drawing a line down the middle of human thought. One side is symbolized by Aristotle’s general orientation: we learn by observing the objective world, isolating elements in what we observe (ie: using mental focus to separate elements from their environment); identifying the elements of our observations (ie: creating a presymbolic mental unit to represent elements that were isolated); identifying associations between elements (eg: associations of quality, quantity, action, etc.); identifying categories of associated elements; applying language to symbolically represent the elements, associations, and categories of elements; and comparing the symbolic language description of reality to our observations of reality.

The other side of this divide in human thought can be symbolized by Plato’s general orientation: we learn by observing the objective world, isolating elements in what we observe; presymbolically identifying the elements of our observations; integrating these elements to create entities in the imagination; setting these entities in a context with other created entities; presymbolically identifying the rules of causation; applying these rules of causation to the created entities in the imagination; observing how the entities’ actions and interactions unfold according to the applied rules of causation; applying language to symbolically represent the element, the entities, and the rules of causation; and comparing the model of reality to our observations of reality.

(Note: I am not describing Aristotle’s and Plato’s view of existence as such, but their epistemological orientation as conceived from my perspective. Clearly what I have written is not how Plato would have understood the relation of his Forms to reality.)

The logical/symbolic approach has been called left brain thinking because it is usually associated with activity in the left temporal, frontal, and prefrontal lobes of the cerebrum. This approach has also tended to be considered more the conscious processing because we are aware of the symbolic language we use to manipulate our mental images into an integrated framework according to the rules of association, categorization and logical connection.

The causal/modelling approach is generally the realm of intuition. It is often described as subconscious processing because we do not normally use consciously identified linguistic symbols to manipulate our mental images. It is usually associated with activity in the right temporal, frontal, and prefrontal lobes of the cerebrum. This causal/modelling approach to reasoning uses the rules of identity and causality to manipulate mental images into an integrated framework of understanding.

The best approach is not to choose one orientation over the other, but to take the world views each produces and attempt to integrate the information into one grand understanding. When we try to solve discrepancies between the two perspectives by owning one and disowning the other, we cut off half of our processes from consciousness. It is like we are severing our corpus callosum. The parts we own we seek to isolate and identify. The parts we disown we are oblivious to the dynamics of their functioning and they affect our behaviour unconsciously.

To be continued.

(Note: I realize that the description of right brain and left brain processes is a little simplistic because both hemispheres are involved in each of these epistemological orientations. Suggesting the distinct processes of the two hemispheres as a physiological dividing line that correlates to an epistemological dividing line is still useful and valid because each side contributes specific functions)

Paul Mawdsley

[Paul Mawdsley]

Dragonfly and Roger,

Can we respect and integrate the two epistemological orientations briefly outlined above as a starting point in metaphysical discussions? Can we take the time to understand the principles involved in both? Can we agree that disputes between epistemological orientations should not be resolved by disowning one or the other?

Paul

[Charles R. Anderson]

Paul,

I found the questions you have raised here very interesting. There are some aspects of your viewpoint that I might have phrased differently, but you are definitely onto an important issue. Even when you point out that operations of the two hemispheres are not entirely separated, it brings to mind the fact that these two approaches to learning and understanding reality are also not entirely separated.

On the face of things, the formation of concepts and their manipulation by logic would appear to favor the strengths of those who are aural and reading learners, while the image manipulators would likely be those who learn and understand best with their hands on things. I have always found that a combination of the two works best for me, which seems an indirect way of suggesting that each path is a valid and useful one for understanding.

I am inclined toward thinking that each approach will not infrequently construct models for the real world and manipulate those models and then return to the task of comparing them to reality. The model parts of the logical/conceptual manipulation approach (symbol seems ambiguous to me) begs to have its consequences checked against reality, primarily to check if the concepts were formed properly and if the logical manipulations were performed correctly. From this perspective, the set of concepts used is a model and must be constantly examined to see if the model does indeed successfully identify the properties of the entities of reality. The aim is that these concepts do this, but as a practical matter, many of our concepts, especially the more abstract ones, need to be treated as models.

As for the manipulation of mental images as models, this is a bit more intuitive, but also in some cases it is also more directly a representation of reality. This can be both a strength and a weakness of this kind of thinking. To know when it is a strength and when it is carried too far, we often need to check it with the logical/conceptual approach to knowledge. I think that in some things this visual/image manipulation, when kept close to real entities and properties in form, is very powerful. When the images become too fanciful, they produce Gods and other such imaginary ideas. Many people will quite literally start turning even very abstract concepts into mental images. The good becomes God, being one example.

As with many things, it can often be useful to have a second approach to solving a problem when one approach hits a snag. This is not to say that the logical/conceptual approach has to run into a brick wall, but in practice it sometimes will for most people sometimes. Sometimes the inspiration we get to solve the problem comes from the visual model manipulations we do, often buried more deeply in our minds than we are aware of. While I have said that higher level mental images can get us into trouble, it is also true that they can provide useful insights. They just need to be checked by other means very carefully.

This at least is how I have introspectively analyzed what my mind does. I would very much welcome the perspective of others who have introspectively examined how their minds work. Of course, such knowledge as has been gained about this from scientific experiments would be interesting, but I know little about that.

Thanks for starting this thought-provoking thread, Paul.