Just to say that I agree with the idea expressed by Valerie of building an
alternative in smaller ways and in conjunction with some of these existing
alternative approaches. To it I would add approaches such as
Permaculture.
I would also say that Physics does not only accept unified theories. That
is certainly a goal in the most theoretical areas of physics but most
physicists who I have worked with are happy to use whatever the latest
approximation to 'reality' is and are well aware of the limitations of
their experiments and theoretical underpinnings.
Physics in practice in my experience is quite messy and the only way to
try to make progress is by trying to fit your evidence to some theory or
other. In practice the evidence never fits that well.
And speaking much more pragmatically I find the discussion on the list too
theoretical (if that is the right word) and somewhat inaccessible.
In Scientists for Global Responsiblity (SGR) www.sgr.org.uk - which I
chair - we try to identify specific problems and alternatives. FOr
example not supporting nuclear weapons or arms sales, arguing for action
on climate change. We also have a new Science for society intitiative S4S
that is developing alternative curricula for schools.
http://www.sgr.org.uk/projects/science4society-week
All of these are in my view pragmatic and simple ways of approaching the
necessary objective of wisdom.
best wishes
Philip Webber
> Dear FoW subscribers
> Having only recently joined your subscribers list, as result of a letter
> by Nicholas in The Guardian, I have followed this thread with interest. I
> find myself impressed but awed by your ambition to overturn the whole
> academic enterprise, at a time when it is riding so high in terms of
> endorsement and support from governments and public.
>
> At the same time I see around me evidence of people rejecting the kind of
> thinking you describe, and seeking more holistic approaches aimed at ends
> other than merely material advancement, and I notice that some of these
> are grounded in conventional academic settings while others are bubbling
> more widely.
>
> I’m thinking, for example of Tim Jackson’s Centre for the Understanding of
> Sustainable Prosperity, http://www.cusp.ac.uk/
> And of the way that Reading University clustered a range of disciplines
> around the theme of Climate Change.
> And of the recurring cycle (of growth and then decline) in interest in
> systems/chaos/complexity thinking.
> And the very widespread enthusiasm for exploring secular buddhism, (often
> starting with an introduction to mindfulness) with its core insights into
> the tragic inevitability of human craving and of ways of living
> constructively and peaceably with that insight.
>
> So I wonder whether it is time to think more widely than the route you
> have chosen? Whether finding and supporting seeds of Wisdom wherever they
> are might be more fruitful in terms of results, and more sustaining to
> Friends of Wisdom?
> I wonder, for example, whether some of the individuals and business
> enterprises setting up and running Academies and Free Schools might be
> interested in designing a school curriculum oriented around world
> problems. Undoubtedly they would not want to do it in the way you would
> find ideal, but it may be a step in the right direction that could form
> part of a swelling tide.
>
> Similarly, whether you might contribute to the Masters degrees in teaching
> mindfulness at Oxford and Bangor.
>
> In other words, instead of focusing on such an enormous change you (we)
> find ways of making a thousand Wisdom flowers bloom!
>
> I suspect you will find this both horrifying and naïve, but I have broad
> shoulders, so feel free to say so!
>
> With best wishes
>
> Valerie
>
> Valerie Iles
>
> FRCGP (Hon)
> Honorary Professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
> Visiting Professor at Bucks New University
>
> 020 7226 1960
> 07958928618
> LinkedIn<https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/valerie-iles/14/96a/29b>
> Twitter<https://twitter.com/valerieiles>
> www.reallylearning.com<http://www.reallylearning.com/>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Philip,
>
> I do agree that the “cult of unreason”, as you put it,
> is damaging. But also damaging is irrationality
> masquerading as reason. This is what the scientific
> community does today. Scientists take for granted
> versions of standard empiricism – the doctrine that, in
> science, claims to knowledge must be assessed
> impartially with respect to evidence. This is upheld as
> the ideal of scientific rationality. But standard
> empiricism is untenable. Physics only ever accepts
> unified theories, even though endlessly many empirically
> more successful disunified rivals are always available.
> This persistent acceptance of unified theories only, in
> a sense against the evidence, means that physics makes a
> big, highly problematic metaphysical assumption about
> the nature of the universe. It is such that all
> disunified theories are false. There is some kind of
> underlying unity in nature.
>
> Physics would be more rigorous, more rational, and more
> successful, if it openly acknowledged this problematic
> metaphysical assumption (instead of pretending it does not
> exist), so that it can be critically assessed and improved.
> And there are, in addition, problematic value and
> political assumptions inherent in the aims of science;
> these too need to be acknowledged explicitly, so that they
> can be critically assessed and improved.
>
> We need a new conception of science, aim-oriented
> empiricism, which represents problematic assumptions of
> science inherent in the aims of science in the form of a
> hierarchy of assumptions, this facilitating critical
> assessment and improvement of aims.
>
> All this is highly pertinent to the successful pursuit of
> wisdom. For this aim-improving conception of scientific
> method can be generalized, and applied to social life, to
> those enterprises that seek to realize what is of value.
> Our aims in life are often profoundly problematic, and need
> critical assessment and improvement as we act, if we are to
> achieve what is genuinely of value.
>
> These, briefly indicated here, are the methodological
> considerations behind my argument that we need a new, more
> intellectually rigorous kind of inquiry, wisdom-inquiry,
> rationally devoted to helping people realize what is of value
> in life.
>
> We do indeed need to improve our ideas about what our
> problems are – above all our problems of living. That
> Grenfell Tower should have been clad in combustible material
> speaks volumes about attitudes of those in power and those
> responsible, towards people living in Tower Blocks. One
> cannot help but think that growing inequality in Britain,
> current government attitudes towards social housing, and the
> political determination to “cut red tape”, all played a role
> in the tragedy.
>
> Best wishes,
> Nick
> Website:
> www.ucl.ac.uk/from-knowledge-to-wisdom<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/from-knowledge-to-wisdom>
> Publications online: http://philpapers.org/profile/17092
> http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/view/people/ANMAX22.date.html
> Dear Nick,
> I am not able to do better than quoting your warning that: “Academia as it
> exists as present is an intellectual and human disaster. The intellectual
> failings of academia have a great deal to do with the failings of the
> modern world. … but ultimately among the academic community, and
> especially among those who have the power to influence its character –
> that what we have at present really is very, very, very seriously
> intellectually defective, in a wholesale, structural way, there being an
> urgent need to put right these glaring intellectual defects. The future
> of humanity may depend on this being done.”
>
> I am unable to think of a more damaging source of anti-intellectualism
> than the persistent practice of “unreason” (a misleadingly mild term) in
> the public and quasi-public sectors. Practical wisdom capable of being
> acquired and exercised by the public is stifled with the result that the
> academic community is deprived of its audiences who could contributed much
> to the advancement of wisdom. Return to the real problems of the world
> with scientific rationality seems to be long overdue. A model worthy of
> considering is the “ethical movement” of 19th century.
>
> The path to more insightful wisdom should be through “right opinion” that
> is relevant to the real problems experienced by the mass. Instead of
> “ethical”, the focus of this new global movement should be
> ‘jurisprudential’. If the right reason of law (of both the common and
> natural law tradition) and how it is being systematically undermined, as
> well as the implications are more widely understood, the process of
> intellectual rejuvenation could go hand in hand with the revival of civil
> society so that those who are muted would have their experiences and
> informed views heard.
>
> The idea of cultivating wisdom at both individual and social levels, as
> well as the urgency of it, may be best disseminated by a series of
> empirical study highlighting the nature, causes and course of the
> problems. A case in point is the tragic Glenfell Tower fire. Is there
> irreconcilable conflict between the inflammable cladding and reportedly
> compliance with the fire regulations? And if so, what exactly are the
> problems?
>
> Kind regards
> Philip Chill
>
> ________________________________
> From: Group concerned that academia should seek and promote wisdom
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on
> behalf of Maxwell, Nicholas
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 10:03 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: FW: Damaging Irrationality of Knowledge-Inquiry
>
>
> Dear Anand,
>
>
>
> There is another way of putting the matter. Academic
> inquiry as it exists today is what we need in order
> to acquire wisdom. It was intended for this purpose.
> In its modern form, it stems from The Enlightenment;
> the intention was that natural and social philosophy
> together would procure enlightenment, progress
> towards an enlightened world.
>
>
>
> The trouble is that, judged from this standpoint,
> academia as it exists today is flawed. The
> philosophes of the French Enlightenment, in
> particular, had the profound idea, but they made basic
> mistakes in developing the idea, and these mistakes
> are still built into academia today.
>
>
>
> In order to develop a kind of inquiry rationally
> designed to help us make progress towards a wiser
> world, we don’t need to begin from scratch, as it
> were. What we need to do is correct the flaws in
> what we have inherited from the past.
>
>
>
> Put right the intellectual blunders inherent in
> academia today, and we would have what we need:
> institutions of learning, a kind of inquiry,
> well-designed from the standpoint of helping humanity
> acquire a bit more wisdom.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
> Website:
> www.ucl.ac.uk/from-knowledge-to-wisdom<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/from-knowledge-to-wisdom>
> From Knowledge to Wisdom - University College
> London<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/from-knowledge-to-wisdom>
> www.ucl.ac.uk<http://www.ucl.ac.uk>
> From Knowledge to Wisdom WE NEED A REVOLUTION. We need a revolution in the
> aims and methods of academic inquiry, so that the basic aim becomes to
> promote wisdom by ...
>
>
>
> Publications online: http://philpapers.org/profile/17092
> [https://philpapers.org/assets/raw/philpeople250.png]<http://philpapers.org/profile/17092>
>
> Profile for Nicholas Maxwell -
> PhilPapers<http://philpapers.org/profile/17092>
> philpapers.org
> PhilPapers profile of Nicholas Maxwell, with publications.
>
>
>
> http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/view/people/ANMAX22.date.html
>
>
>
> Dear Anand,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your comment. Decades ago, around 1974,
> during the course of writing a book called “The Aims of
> Science”, that never got published, I came to the
> conclusion that academia, dominated by
> knowledge-inquiry, was an intellectual and humanitarian
> disaster. I became aware that humanity urgently needed
> a new kind of inquiry embedded in its universities
> around the world, which took, as its basic task, to
> help people realize (apprehend and create) what is of
> value in life. But what should I call the basic
> intellectual aim of this new kind of inquiry, given
> that it was not (or not just) knowledge? Very
> reluctantly, I hit upon “wisdom”. And in a book
> published in 1984 called “From Knowledge to Wisdom”, I
> said exactly what I meant by “wisdom”: here is my 1984
> characterization of it:-
>
>
>
> “The central task of inquiry is to devote reason to the enhancement of
> wisdom – wisdom being understood here as the desire, the active endeavour,
> and the capacity to discover and achieve what is desirable and of value in
> life, both for oneself and for others. Wisdom includes knowledge and
> understanding but goes beyond them in also including: the desire and
> active striving for what is of value, the ability to see what is of value,
> actually and potentially, in the circumstances of life, the ability to
> experience value, the capacity to help realize what is of value for
> oneself and others, the capacity to help solve those problems of living
> that arise in connection with attempts to realize what is of value, the
> capacity to use and develop knowledge, technology and understanding as
> needed for the realization of value. Wisdom, like knowledge, can be
> conceived of, not only in personal terms, but also in institutional or
> social terms. We can thus interpret the philosophy of wisdom as asserting:
> the basic task of rational inquiry is to help us develop wiser ways of
> living, wiser institutions, customs and social relations, a wiser world.”
> (ch. 4)
>
>
>
> “Wisdom” is used, here, as a technical term for the
> basic intellectual-social aim of a kind of inquiry
> rationally devoted to helping people achieve what is of
> value in life. And it means “the desire, the active
> endeavour, and the capacity to discover and achieve
> what is desirable and of value in life”.
> Wisdom-inquiry, if it existed, would be rationally
> designed to promote wisdom, in this sense.
>
>
>
> “Wisdom” can, of course, quite legitimately, mean
> different things for different purposes, and it is
> foolish to think there is any such thing as the
> definition of wisdom. Most notions include the idea,
> however, that wisdom is something of value: anyone wise
> in my sense will be able to acquire wisdom in other
> senses, if they are genuinely of value.
>
>
>
> The crucial point, however, is that humanity really
> does urgently need to learn how to resolve conflicts
> and problems of living in more cooperatively rational
> ways – in more effective, intelligent and humane ways –
> and it is just that which wisdom-inquiry is designed to
> help us achieve, and knowledge-inquiry is horribly
> badly designed for.
>
>
>
> Anand, there is a very clear answer to your question.
> Wisdom as I have characterized it, is very clearly worth
> having. Wisdom, in that sense, is the proper basic
> intellectual-personal-social aim of genuinely rational
> inquiry – wisdom-inquiry, rather different from what we
> have at present.
>
>
>
> That which is of value in life has a multiplicity of
> aspects; in order to realize what is of value we need to
> do a multiplicity of different things in different
> contexts, in the pursuit of different aspects of what is
> of value. Looking after a sick friend is of value; so is
> creating a work of art; and so is entertaining children,
> or building a much needed house. The skills and
> capacities, insights and instincts, emotional responses
> and problem-solving capacities, needed to realize what is
> of value, are all encouraged to grow within the framework
> of wisdom-inquiry. Of course! That is the fundamental
> idea. Have a look at “From Knowledge to Wisdom” (or
> “What’s Wrong With Science?” or “Is Science Neurotic?”
> or “Two Great Problems of Learning: Science and
> Civilization”.
>
>
>
> Not everyone who is educated within the framework of
> wisdom-inquiry will end up equally wise, anymore than
> everyone who is educated within the framework of
> knowledge-inquiry ends up equally knowledgeable. But one
> thing I feel pretty confident about. If humanity managed
> to get its wits about it sufficiently to transform
> knowledge-inquiry into wisdom-inquiry, there would be a
> lot more wisdom around (in my sense), and we would come to
> live in a rather wiser world.
>
>
>
> All good wishes,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
> Website:
> www.ucl.ac.uk/from-knowledge-to-wisdom<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/from-knowledge-to-wisdom>
> Publications online: http://philpapers.org/profile/17092
> http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/view/people/ANMAX22.date.html
>
>
>
> From: Group concerned that academia should seek and promote wisdom
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ak Awasthi
> Sent: 12 July 2017 16:18
> To:
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Damaging Irrationality of Knowledge-Inquiry
>
>
>
> Dear Nick,
>
> Whatever you propose, has definite merits and can bring results to the
> tune of accelerating intellectual / technological efficiency but as wisdom
> is above all this-- it is insight not a faculty to be trained or
> sharpened-- the net result may be that we succeed in inspiring someone
> touch somewhere airy precincts of wisdom, which he/she may use in the hour
> of need but it is difficult to claim that he /she would surely behave
> like a wise person always. Let us think over again if wisdom is a
> discipline? If it is not then it can't be tought. If it is, then what is
> its form? Human history does not help us resolve the latter.
>
>
> Anand Kumar Awasthi
> Former Professor of English and Chair, Director, Centre for Canadian
> Studies,
> Dr Hari Singh Gour Central University, Saugor (MP)-470003
> 0562-2600368; 09425451181, 08171038448, 09412834899
> Home:25 Syndicate Bank Colony, Opp Nirbhay Nagar, Near Asopa Hospital,
> Gailana Road, AGRA-282007 U.P.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Thomas Mengel
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Nicholas et al.,
>
>
>
> Further on the question “can wisdom be taught”: The following book has
> been quite influential on my teaching and writing about wisdom education
> (e.g., Mengel, T. (2010). Learning that matters – Discovery of meaning and
> development of wisdom in undergraduate education. Collected Essays on
> Learning and Teaching (CELT), Vol. III, June 2010, p. 119-123. - >Download
> article<<http://apps.medialab.uwindsor.ca/ctl/CELT/vol3/CELT20.pdf>); in
> case you don’t know this book, it is worth a read:
>
>
>
> 2008
>
> Teaching for Wisdom
> Cross-cultural Perspectives on Fostering Wisdom
>
> Editors: Ferrari, Michel, Potworowski, Georges (Eds.)
>
> ( retrieved from: http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781402065316 )
>
>
>
> THOMAS MENGEL
> Professor • Renaissance College – Leadership Studies
> T506 447-3165<tel:(506)%20447-3165> H506 756-3878<tel:(506)%20756-3878>
>
>
> [University of New Brunswick]
>
>
> [Facebook]/uofnb<https://www.facebook.com/uofnb>[Twitter]@unb<https://twitter.com/UNB>[Instagram]@discoverunb<https://instagram.com/discoverunb/>UNB.ca<http://www.unb.ca/>
>
>
> Confidentiality Note: This email and the information contained in it is
> confidential, may be privileged and is intended for the exclusive use of
> the addressee(s). Any other person is strictly prohibited from using,
> disclosing, distributing or reproducing it. If you have received this
> communication in error, please reply by email to the sender and delete or
> destroy all copies of this message.
>
>
>
>
> From:
> "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on
> behalf of "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Reply-To:
> "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Date: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 7:34 AM
> To:
> "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Subject: Damaging Irrationality of Knowledge-Inquiry
>
>
>
> Dear Friends of Wisdom,
>
>
>
> I am delighted by the discussion
> that has broken out amongst us. I
> do hope we can find a way of
> acting together rather more than
> we have in the past to get our
> message across – and make some
> headway towards creating the kind
> of institutions of learning that
> humanity so urgently needs.
>
>
>
> A comment on the question that has
> been raised: Can wisdom be taught?
> This seems to me the wrong question
> to ask. The glaring disaster that
> ought to stare us in the face, it
> seems to me, is just this: Academic
> inquiry devoted to the pursuit of
> knowledge is an intellectual
> disaster and a human disaster when
> judged from the standpoint of the
> basic aim of helping to promote
> human welfare.
>
>
>
> The successful scientific pursuit of
> knowledge (and technological know-how)
> has, of course, led to a multitude of
> good things. It has made the modern
> world possible. But the successful
> pursuit of knowledge dissociated from
> a more fundamental concern to help
> solve problems of living in
> increasingly cooperatively rational
> ways has led to all our current global
> problems as well: global warming,
> population growth, habitat destruction
> and rapid extinction of species,
> lethal modern war, gross inequality
> around the globe, pollution of earth,
> sea and air, nuclear weapons – even
> fake news and Trump.
>
>
>
> At the root of our world’s problems
> there is a monumental intellectual
> blunder: rationality demands that
> inquiry pursues knowledge in a way
> dissociated from human concerns, from
> problems of living. The scientific
> community is convinced that this is the
> proper way to proceed. The idea is
> never taught; it is simply implicit in
> everything that is taught. Academics
> are, in effect, brainwashed to accept
> the idea without question. But it is a
> fallacy – a fallacy built into the
> institutional/intellectual structure of
> science, of much of academia, with
> disastrous human consequences.
>
>
>
> A kind of inquiry that is genuinely
> devoted, rationally, to helping to
> promote human welfare, would give
> absolute intellectual priority to the
> basic problems that need to be solved –
> namely problems of living, problems we
> encounter in our lives as we strive to
> achieve what is of value in life.
>
>
>
> Solutions to problems of living are not,
> primarily, facts, theories, items of
> knowledge: they are actions, what we do
> or refrain from doing. A kind of inquiry
> devoted to helping to promote human
> welfare in a genuinely intellectually
> rigorous way, would give intellectual
> priority to the tasks of:
>
>
>
> 1. Articulating, and improving the articulating of, problems of living;
>
> 2. Proposing and critically assessing possible and actual actions –
> policies, political programmes, ways of living, philosophies of life.
>
>
>
> The enterprise of acquiring knowledge and
> developing technology would emerge out of,
> and feed back into, these two
> intellectually basic activities, 1 and 2.
>
>
>
> (And furthermore, natural science would put
> aim-oriented empiricism into scientific
> practice instead of paying lip service to
> standard empiricism, as at present; and
> social inquiry and the humanities would seek
> to help humanity put aim-oriented
> rationality into practice in personal,
> social, institutional and political life, to
> facilitate the realization of what is of
> value in life.)
>
>
>
> Academia as it exists as present is an
> intellectual and human disaster. The
> intellectual failings of academia have a
> great deal to do with the failings of the
> modern world. As I see it, there is hardly
> any more urgent thing that we need to do than
> to spread awareness among whoever will listen
> – but ultimately among the academic
> community, and especially among those who
> have the power to influence its character –
> that what we have at present really is very,
> very, very seriously intellectually
> defective, in a wholesale, structural way,
> there being an urgent need to put right these
> glaring intellectual defects. The future of
> humanity may depend on this being done.
>
>
>
> Academia has been labouring away under the
> wrong paradigm. We urgently need a new, better
> paradigm. We need an academic revolution.
>
>
>
> What would this entail? I have tried to make
> a brief summary of the changes that need to be
> made here:
> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/from-knowledge-to-wisdom/whatneedstochange
> .
>
>
>
> But the crucial issue, it seems to me, is to
> see clearly what is wrong, intellectually, with
> the academic status quo, with knowledge-inquiry
> (insofar as it dominates academia today). Only
> then does it become apparent what needs to be
> done to put matters right.
>
>
>
> And, incidentally, the whole tendency of
> wisdom-inquiry, with its encouragement to put
> heart and mind in touch with one another, so
> that we may develop heartfelt minds and mindful
> hearts, would be to enable us to discover, as we
> learn and live, how to realize what is of value
> in life, for ourselves and others – the task of
> wisdom-inquiry, and a good aim to bear in mind
> as one lives!
>
>
>
> All good wishes,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
> Website:
> www.ucl.ac.uk/from-knowledge-to-wisdom<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/from-knowledge-to-wisdom>
> Publications online: http://philpapers.org/profile/17092
> http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/view/people/ANMAX22.date.html
>
>
>
>
>
|
