Reducing Integration…
Estudia: Okay, Phi’, how are we going to relate the issues of context and hierarchy?
Philo: Well, first remember that knowledge is hierarchical. If you were able to comprehend any and every concept or conclusion just by observation ― by looking at things in reality ― then you wouldn’t have to worry about the order of ideas. Everything would just be observable and some accumulation of primary entities. But things aren’t that simple. Concepts are different from each other in one very important respect.
Estudia: What’s that?
Philo: You tell me. Remember some items can be understood from simple sense perception. Colors, smells, tastes, and so on come immediately to mind. Other things, like furniture or government, can only be understood by understanding a whole host of things. You have to first grasp a continuous chain of concepts from the simplest to more and more complex with each link of the chain dependent on the one before it.
Estudia: Oh, I see what you mean. Concepts differ in how far removed they are from the perceptual level. Some are simple sense experiences but most are more complex.
Philo: Right. In some instances the nature of your senses determines the hierarchy. Like things you can see and observe come before things you can only see through a microscope, or things you can only detect with some measuring instrument.
Estudia: Well that means that knowledge has to follow some order. We have to understand things like “cat”, “dog”, “cow” and more before we can conceptualize “animal”.
Philo: But notice that it doesn’t matter if you used “goat”, “zebra” or “elephant” to form the concept animal. A higher-level concept depends on you grasping a series of simpler concepts; however, the series is not unique. There is no hierarchy when there is an option like this. Hierarchy applies when there is not an option. Hierarchy applies to a concept when the only way to reach that concept is through some understanding of simpler concepts.
Estudia: Kind of like a prerequisite.
Philo: Exactly. Understanding the simpler concepts is a prerequisite to understanding the higher level concept.
Estudia: Certainly applies to most course work in college. You are not going to understand Calculus without some knowledge of arithmetic and geometry.
Philo: Right on. Now this brings us to your original question. We can relate context and hierarchy together. You see, a hierarchy is a kind of context. We discussed the contextual view of knowledge and said that your thinking is relational. You have to keep things in context.
Estudia: Right. So?
Philo: The hierarchical nature of knowledge tells us that our thinking is relational. This hierarchical view tells us that every item or concept has a context that is built in a logical fashion from a foundation of first-level items. Context says that the things we know are a sum of items. Hierarchy says that the way we learned about our concepts was by necessarily starting with the simpler ideas and moving to the more complex.
Estudia: Hmmm. Okay. The idea of context takes the big view. What we know is a sum. The idea of hierarchy takes a look at the way something is learned and concludes that the simple ideas make the more complex ideas possible. So what?
Philo: So what? Well, it makes a big difference. This all says that to gain knowledge you have to integrate ideas into your already existing knowledge. Knowledge we said is contextual. This means you have to integrate new knowledge into your existing knowledge very carefully..
Estudia: That’s pretty obvious to me now. The need for integration is why it is so difficult for me to keep all this in mind. I’m learning all sorts of new concepts and reaching all sorts of conclusions that have to be consistent with what I know or I have to change what I know to fit the new facts. What about the hierarchical nature of knowledge? What does that imply we have to do to gain knowledge?
Philo: Reduction.
Estudia: Reduction? What’s that?
Philo: Let me explain next time we get together.
Estudia: Fine, I need a break. See you later.
Philo: Well, first remember that knowledge is hierarchical. If you were able to comprehend any and every concept or conclusion just by observation ― by looking at things in reality ― then you wouldn’t have to worry about the order of ideas. Everything would just be observable and some accumulation of primary entities. But things aren’t that simple. Concepts are different from each other in one very important respect.
Estudia: What’s that?
Philo: You tell me. Remember some items can be understood from simple sense perception. Colors, smells, tastes, and so on come immediately to mind. Other things, like furniture or government, can only be understood by understanding a whole host of things. You have to first grasp a continuous chain of concepts from the simplest to more and more complex with each link of the chain dependent on the one before it.
Estudia: Oh, I see what you mean. Concepts differ in how far removed they are from the perceptual level. Some are simple sense experiences but most are more complex.
Philo: Right. In some instances the nature of your senses determines the hierarchy. Like things you can see and observe come before things you can only see through a microscope, or things you can only detect with some measuring instrument.
Estudia: Well that means that knowledge has to follow some order. We have to understand things like “cat”, “dog”, “cow” and more before we can conceptualize “animal”.
Philo: But notice that it doesn’t matter if you used “goat”, “zebra” or “elephant” to form the concept animal. A higher-level concept depends on you grasping a series of simpler concepts; however, the series is not unique. There is no hierarchy when there is an option like this. Hierarchy applies when there is not an option. Hierarchy applies to a concept when the only way to reach that concept is through some understanding of simpler concepts.
Estudia: Kind of like a prerequisite.
Philo: Exactly. Understanding the simpler concepts is a prerequisite to understanding the higher level concept.
Estudia: Certainly applies to most course work in college. You are not going to understand Calculus without some knowledge of arithmetic and geometry.
Philo: Right on. Now this brings us to your original question. We can relate context and hierarchy together. You see, a hierarchy is a kind of context. We discussed the contextual view of knowledge and said that your thinking is relational. You have to keep things in context.
Estudia: Right. So?
Philo: The hierarchical nature of knowledge tells us that our thinking is relational. This hierarchical view tells us that every item or concept has a context that is built in a logical fashion from a foundation of first-level items. Context says that the things we know are a sum of items. Hierarchy says that the way we learned about our concepts was by necessarily starting with the simpler ideas and moving to the more complex.
Estudia: Hmmm. Okay. The idea of context takes the big view. What we know is a sum. The idea of hierarchy takes a look at the way something is learned and concludes that the simple ideas make the more complex ideas possible. So what?
Philo: So what? Well, it makes a big difference. This all says that to gain knowledge you have to integrate ideas into your already existing knowledge. Knowledge we said is contextual. This means you have to integrate new knowledge into your existing knowledge very carefully..
Estudia: That’s pretty obvious to me now. The need for integration is why it is so difficult for me to keep all this in mind. I’m learning all sorts of new concepts and reaching all sorts of conclusions that have to be consistent with what I know or I have to change what I know to fit the new facts. What about the hierarchical nature of knowledge? What does that imply we have to do to gain knowledge?
Philo: Reduction.
Estudia: Reduction? What’s that?
Philo: Let me explain next time we get together.
Estudia: Fine, I need a break. See you later.
posted by Rp | 10:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home