|
Scientific |
Idealistic |
||
| (dialectical) | Mystical | Mechanical | Ultra-Relativist |
| 1. Everything changes |
----------ABSOLUTE LAWS---------- |
NO ORDER | |
| 2. Change is like aging, an internal process based on internal contradictions/friction
(unity of opposites) |
Supernatural
Everything determined by Higher Powers |
Mechanical
Everything determined by Laws of Nature |
CHAOS
Nothing determined or even predictable |
| Helpless - no free will | Helpless - no free will | Helpless - anything
can happen anytime |
|
|
|
|
||
| 3. Qualitative change comes from quantitative
change |
(Another Mystical view asserts that "free will" alone can do everything, but it is often implied that only a special few, "chosen?" can really do it) | ||
| 4. Change is irreversible | (In reality, nobody adheres completely to these three Idealist types of thinking or they would not be able to function in the world.) | ||
| Some examples: | |||
| 1. There may be a crisis | World will end next Tuesday | No Problem today,
so none tomorrow |
"Never can tell" |
| 2. WWII "had" to happen but not in every detail | God's Will | No stopping it | "Anything could've happened." |
| 3. Oily rags can ignite | It's Magic | They won't ignite | "I don't know" |
| 4. Use evidence | DOGMA | Sometimes Dogma
Some limited evidence |
So open minded as to evade any
conclusions (but does act) - can disguise dogmatism |
|
|
|||
| Many unscientific thinkers flip flop from one anti-scientific set
of ideas to another extremely different opposite set, in order to compensate
for their previous one-sidedness. Example: the person who goes
back and forth from strict religion, living for a future after death to
total lack of self control, alcohol, living for the moment only, etc. or
the pragmatist who rejects scientific theorizing as dogmatic and then,
in a crisis, embraces some mystical, dogmatic, even fascist theory.
Common errors:
2) Seeing both sides and not drawing a conclusion 3) Seeing both sides and giving them equal weight -- arbitrary compromise 4) Seeing both sides and trying to give them accurate weight, but not taking into account how the two sides interact with each other. Not seeing the changes taking place within the situation 5) Not seeing how the situation is connected to other situations that can affect it
|
|||
Return
to Rich Gibson's Home Page