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?
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/
I suppose so. I certainly do my share of that. But you have to be a very good writer to state someone else's revolutionary new hypothesis concisely and in words the average reader without the proper background can understand. We also have an additional obligation due to the very young average age of our members: last I heard it was about 16. If you're presenting a new hypothesis that has not yet been tested and peer-reviewed exhaustively, you have to make sure the readers recognize that. You don't want to mislead them into assuming it's canonical science like our explanations of the laws of physics, or generally accepted findings like our explanations of history.
NO. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!p Cosmic..) Ideal.. ? Probably not, it is a good medium though.
Yes & I thought it would be. In addition to trying to explain a lot of simple science here (and some not so simple, but still classical), I have suggest an idea that might help Obama climb out of GWB’s hole. See it at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2095292&postcount=11 Beginning at my letter to Obama, part way down the post. Before Congress even voted the first time on TARP, I told why it would fail (as it has) and suggested a cheaper plan that would work. I.e. make toxic assets non-toxic without buying them and solve the root problem (Get over extended buyers into homes they can afford at least to rent) etc. See it at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2025940&postcount=1 And discussion by other in that thread. I also tried to prevent GWB from being elected the second time by starting the thread: "How Dumb can US voters Be?" a few months prior to that election. Also in the "News from Gaza" thread I have tried to show that Israel has a DEFENSIVE alternative to the High Kill Ratio RETALITORY policy it has followed for 40+ years with failure. (Problems for Israel are worse now than back then and can be come much worse when biological agents, like Ebola, can be tossed from Tel Aviv high rise window.) The defensive option would reduce the loss of even Israeli lives. Based on the results that my "social efforts" have achieved via posting here at sciforums, I doubt that the internet (at least this part of it) is of much use for advancing a social POV or suggestions related to the hard drug problem or the current economic crisis, which I foresaw and posted about three years ago. (Identifying the unpayable debt GWB was building and the "housing bubble" back in 2005, etc.) For the last few months I have been posting comments on articles in The Economist, often with links to some post here as space there is more limited.
