2009年7月27日月曜日

Addendum:

Still trying to figure out but... basically, I think what I'm doing is to "find out meanings" of the real world. It does exist without meanings, and it might be science that proves that.

But what can you possible say, by looking at something like brain functions, about... let's use the same example here, a relationship between teacher and students? You always need meanings to make sense of events. If you are studying brain functions only, you probably wouldn't need to think about what it means (I bed you still do...) but any kind of science and logics are always associated with human reasonings.

If you don't know about OUR methodologies, we don't just believe word to word of an interview data or the result of questionnaires. For example, there is a methodology called triangulation in sociology. We search for evidences to check the validity of interpretation of the raw data, using as "empirical" evidences as possible.


Plus, science has made people believe that everything is in our brain... and I think a lot of people believe that science of human-being is all sorted out by studying nervous system or biological composition of our body... psychology had so much influence by those scientific views too.
But it's becoming to be doubted to see human-beings in that way, and within the last decades, the importance of environmental stimulus have been studied as triggers of human behaviors. What we do cannot necessarily be explained by measuring stuff inside of us.

For example, people thought that babies learn to walk at a certain point and the process of walking is designed by genes in a universal developmental process of human beings. After a baby start moving its legs, while still lying upwards, there is a certain point when it loses the movement and become still until it starts clawing on the floor. And it's been believed that those phases are genetically determined.

Of course certain movements become able supported by development of muscles and bones, but as the body weight of a baby increases, the movement is restricted and even with the physical abilities, it "seems" like they stop moving their legs for some developmental reasons. But when researchers put some equipments on babies to help reduce the weight (gravity is working as an environmental factor) on legs, they start moving their legs again... and with something to step on (environmental factor) (e.g. treadmill), they learn to walk faster than it's been expected for long.
It's all interactive...

The example above is "scientific", but this is something studied in a field of "psychology" as well... my point is that we do examine more than what's called subjective, in order to figure out factors working behind human behaviors. And I feel like it's all the name of academic principles that's bothering you to think that "other than science"" is fuzzy and and not valuable.

7 件のコメント:

Andrew さんのコメント...

I have comments on two points:

Where you said "be doubted to see human-beings in that way, and within the last decades, the importance of environmental stimulus have been studied as...":

I feel like you could still what's going on inside of humans depending on the environment. The point being that it's still just what's inside of us...whatever inside of us that is reacting to the outside world. What's inside of us is still a major major factor here.

And then when you said:

"For example, how would you SCIENTIFICALLY explain social interactions that happen in a classroom SO IT HELPS PREDICT a set of events or result of interactions in future?":

Science is a way to predict the future in a lot of ways but I guess it doesn't predict an exact turn of events in the future. I don't think that was ever science's point and I don't think science is any less valid because it doesn't do that. I think other ways could do a good job but the way it's explained is different.

and then finally,the part about the "STUDY it scientifically, but that doesn't mean the scientific explanations could represent the whole phenomena you really wanna know about.":

I feel like there could be other explanations for the phenomena in question but they, quite frankly, might not be as good or accurate. If there's another "academic" way of explaining the phenomena, I would basically group that "academic" method into the "scientific" category. My view of science is pretty broad.

Tomochan さんのコメント...

Okay, about the first point, I understand what you're saying and I disagree about that way of thinking due to my certain standpoint.

You can definitely see what's going on inside of human-beings, that's one way to study something... whatever it's called... biological/physiological science... kinda micro-level perspectives... but it's not about if it's possible or not. It's about if that perspective fits/helps/is appropriate for some kind of phenomena or events you're trying to understand.

(I didn't say "better" intentionally... cuz it depends on the matter.)

You were talking about welfare policies in the states the other day on your blog, and said humans are social animals. When you talk or think about things like policies and societies... let's say when you're listening to Obama's speech and politics, would you still say that it's more helpful to think about whatever movement of neurological transmissions inside his brain or audiences' brains, than the whole event within a certain period of time... from the speech to the result of what he's done and any other spin-off phenomena in the society... economics, people's beliefs, wars... etc?

I think those macro-level perspectives are useful, at some points, to think about human-beings not as individuals and as special creatures, but as animals and social creatures... we depend deeply on the environment and we interact with it like other animals... Christianity has trouble understanding human-beings in the same category as other animals though...


About the second point:

I guess what I'm doing could be called "science" then.

Andrew さんのコメント...

Actually this "macro-level" and "micro-level" is really good at describing what we're talking about here. I feel like the micro and the macro could be described scientifically within my view of what science is. I feel like before you were just thinking that the micro-level is science and the macro being psychology or sociology or something like that. Maybe I was wrong in perceiving it that way. At any rate, we're arguing over categorization here, right? True data results are more important probably, wouldn't you say? I've become more aware of this recently.

Andrew さんのコメント...

And just because Obama's speech may be described in neurological terms doesn't mean that it can't be described in other terms just as well. The point is that science is breaking it down to what's really happening...scientifically...and hopefully more outside of just a "common sense human perspective." Nothing wrong with either...but basic level stuff is interesting and could give us clues into other facets of reality as well. The "common sense human perspective" I described above often feels like a closed circuit to me...it's good but a scientific viewpoint can bring us out of that. I'm not saying you're using that non-scientific view but I am reminded of that for some reason.

Tomochan さんのコメント...

Exactly.

Tomochan さんのコメント...
このコメントは投稿者によって削除されました。
Tomochan さんのコメント...

I believe I'm challenging things like commone senses and things that are taken for granted, with the means of science.