 | |||
 5  5  14  |
 |
 |
 |
Basic Heuristic Operations
 |
| On finding out firsthand - how to do it. |
Scientific inquiry starts with getting ideas. Some people get them from others, other people
hatch them (bring out ideas) themselves, and in many cases we manage to borrow and hatch -
do both. Regardless of their source, ideas mark where scientific inquiry starts - it is a
procedure.
Learning to find out things on one's own may be helped somewhat. One way is becoming
good at observing first-hand. It can be trained, and ideas may rise on top of
observations. Another way is described here; and heuristics is about how
to find out things firsthand - also through steps, measurements, and routines - and may be
helped.
Contents
Supporting "well medleys" are
presupposed throughout:Heuristics: Introduction
It is said that the mathematician Archimedes ran naked into the streets one day, joyfully crying "Eureka!" It means "I've found (it) out!" He had solved a problem.There is a way to become better at finding out things than guessing and acting at random. It is called heuristics.
DEFINITION: Heuristic is a method for solving problems in which one employs principles (rules of thumb) that usually lead to a solution. [Lte (dvs. Schunk 1996, 240, 443]
Working Against Heuristics: Much Fear
Fear can make conform in unfulfilling, unrewarding ways; fear may not help you to progress in life, even though there are sane sides to fear, such as proper precautions. But fears may block insights, maybe insights that could help you on and up. In order to ease the way for such insights, relaxation is advocated. Probably Rogerian councelling helps too.In psychoanalysis the client is to lie down and relax in order to find out things. Relaxing is good for coping and seeing. Sigmund Freund found out parts of that. In Zen training relaxing is an integral part of the training itself - not getting tense and upset is vital for practical benefit.
High-strung persons who have a hard time relaxing, may find that their coping efforts breed stress, and stress can breed neuroses and physical illness. In fact, it is widespread [LINK]
It helps to go against stress. And to think well, it may help too, just as suggested above.
Four Strands of One Rope
Many persons think they know when they believe they know. The author Frederick Nichols Kerlinger suggests that man employs four methods of "knowing" [see Keo or a later ed.]. However, what he calls "methods" intertwine and cannot be separated from one another full well, so let us adjust the terminology and call them three strands of a rope:- STICKING TO IT - ADJUSTING TO SOME TRADITION: The first, and perhaps most primitive, is tenacity. Some persons think, "The truth is true, and because it is true it is true, and will ever remain true." Some persons will stick and cling to such beliefs even in the face of convincing evidence contrary to their cherished ideas. In fact, Werner Heisenberg found that tenet tenacity (obstinacy) was in full play in learned people too, and among scientists [cf. Thd 210-23]
- AUTHORITIES: Some think what is held to be true is true because someone who is thought to know that insists - also on record, as in a book. Kerlinger claims that adjusting to authorities can be better than adjusting to tradition (strand 1), because some progress can be made. Present authorities might change their minds; and some new authorities can emerge. Progress may be slow, but it is possible.
- HAVING A HUNCH OR BETTER: Kerlinger calls it intuition, an a priori method, and
a way of knowing. Jerome Bruner has shown that many scientists and mathematicians use
hunches in their work: "Get ideas first, verify them next," is part of the sound allround
program. [Proe]
Many persons think that some insights are true because they seem to be - maybe they seem evident, even self-evident. Or perhaps certain ideas stand to reason, look plausible and reasonable. "We hold these truths to be self-evident . . ." is a famours phrase about equality of men.
However, Kerlinger worries that two good men, both employing valid reasoning, might arrive at different conclusions, and that very often happens in philosphy! It is a big problem, so mind to question: "To whom are these ideas self-evident? On what grounds? In what times?" That might help a bit.
- SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY: Kerlinger finds that science is where ideas (tentative
knowledge) are tested against the real world (data), to either validate or falsify
(invalidate, debunk) the ideas, and this is done in public, to enhance objectivity.
Contrast the idealized openness of science with the closedness (firmness?) of tenacity and
authority.
Some go through the scientific processes for rigorously and formally than others, but there is space in the world to question, wonder, observe, and synthesize the information if we please. And we can adapt our behavior as a result of this natural incremental (gains-yielding) process: Then we learn.
Kerlinger thinks that scientific inquiry leads to more "dependable" knowledge, because the method appears to be self-correcting. Well it seems to be up to a point.
But let us bring the strands together again, for a unified rope of science is stronger than a single strand of it: All in all, having a hunch or better (third scenario above) marks the beginning of scientific investigations. In fact, very much depends on the ideas you come up with, or borrow from others for special reasons. What is more, in practice even scientists make use of the strands that are shown. Scientific inquiry is looked on as the authority, its advocates are authorities too, and they and other adherents stick to the particular methods and ways of thinking in a tradition at work - where intutively had ideas (hunches) are investigated a lot. It all unites! Much depends on profiling. Kerlinger thought of four "methods", but his thinking undermines the ideas of separate methods. Indeed, what is at work is much like strands of a rope - aspects of a process are working synergetically. It is much a question of where the focuses are, how open the involved persons feel they can afford to be, etc.
Naturally, it is as should be. And learning from great men is a boon - it's neat.
Stuck With Infirm Teachings Or Better
If you are stuck with teachings that you and others are afraid to study in depth and understand, heuristics may not help very much at first, for example due to the dependency involved. You should find out how to become penetrating too. Freud did it, and it changed his life and the lives of very many.However, your first need could be to reduce and hopefully overcome fear and anxiety and the like - not ignoring their causes. If you have done that, you may get skilled at finding out things, that is, in heuristics. It is much used in scientific study. What is more, it can help some to get a better life by living up to its stepwise methods, if the outer conditions are not all too bad. Much depends on them.
Example
Let us say you want to get to grips with a few tenets that are help up by some authority figure. First, gauge your circumstances and try to assess how far the authority figure is presented as mighty, or revered in your circles, how far he or she is supposed be revered as an authority by "good (obedient) guys". They are the outwardly devoted, loyal members of a "clan".In line with that you may realize that what you have to face, is not just a problem of assessing the VALIDITY OF TENETS by someone. An even better problem could be that of coping with a somewhat totem-like figure status in the "clan", so to speak, and how it may be linked to your sense of belonging, your sense of security in a stabilized universe, and so on.
Let us say you attack basic tenets of a big authority. Some evidently "buy" (accept) his tenets wholesale without inspecting anything, perhaps without understanding all he is into and seems to cover either. That could be quite a problem for common lay members of the community if his teachings work bad, for example because they are not fit, true or apt.
Your Tenet Investigations
To arrive at different conclusions than the big guy, you have to estimate yourself: One of the things you have to do is to judge (evaluate) the essence of his tenets one by one and come up with some pertinent and very unbiased conclusions. These findings need to be very well-founded under the circumstances - for in heuristic work there are dangers of not understanding full well, of going amiss, and much else. One has to take such things into account, and these matters can be helped by being careful.TENET 1: A cheval donné, ne lui regarde pas en la bouche. (Don't look a gift horse in the mouth) (French proverb) [Fp No. 184]
COMMENT: Just for fun, let us assume this proverb is regarded as the utmost authority today.
Below are some points to align to it, if you care.
Authoritative norms can be (1) normative or regulative on the one hand, and (2)
assessing ones on the other. Here we deal with a value norm, and the citation may be used to
exercise a sway or influence conduct. Maybe the tenet serves the imposing of SELF-CONTROL.
But what sorts of self-control are asked for, and when, in what circumstances, and how far
is that supposed to go (be valid) for anyone of us? That could be a problem to find
out.
Note as well that pepping up a message by popularisation brings nothing to the
VALIDITY of any unspecified norm.
The LOGIC of a tenet may not be water-tight, as much depends on interpretation, as
Jesus says in the opening of the Gospel of Thomas: "he said, "Whoever discovers the
interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." [Link].
In this case too, "gift horse" may be understood figuratively. And by the way, it hardly
seems sensible enough not to inspect a gift horse. The inhabitants of Troy, for example,
come close to illustrating it. They took a wooden horse into town, and were killed because
of it. Hence, find out what is good for you: Politeness and matters have their requirements,
and precautions have theirs. In actual living one tries to strike some balance between many
and in part opposing interests.
TENET 2: "I know from your eyes and I know from your smile that tonight will be fine, will
be fine, will be fine, will be fine for a while." - Leonard Cohen.
COMMENT: You have to ask: Is it true (too?). How can you "make sure before you believe it?"
There is a way, and it is not perfect, but it often helps: The use of statistics. It may not
be easy to carry out, but simple roads can be mapped.
Making statements explicit (and nuanced enough) can help investigation. That is one
of the foremost principles used in academic writing.
We should learn to inspect. It can be done, and there are levels of proficiency in
it too. As for eyes and lips as message bringers and revealers of moods and intents and the
like, some psychological studies exist, but they seem very crude. Therefore, consider [cf.
Psr, Sop].
TENET 3: "The evidence today is that the full evolution of intelligence came as a result of
bipedalism and tool using." - Jerome Bruner [Bign (Beyond the
Information Given), p. 437]
COMMENT: Tenets may or may not be confirmed by other experts, or authorities, that may lend
a ring of authority to what they "sanction", but intelligent animals such as dolphins might
want him to reconsider. They don't walk on legs, for example, and might thus and otherwise
suggest that Dr. Bruner's viewpoint here is too limited.
In some cases the thinking of TWO authorities may be set up against one another, -
be it Dr. Bruner and a communicative porpoise - so that you may compare and contrast - it is
one of the much used methods in discussing teachings. Keep your eyes open to such as
consistency, that is, internally non-contradictive delivery, and study facts before you
become a believer.
IDEAL PUPILS
Many basic scientific ways of thinking and concomitant methods can assist coping in general.If you now want to learn basic steps of investigation, two ways are shown in the following. First you have an IDEAL, and next you have the PUPIL(S) to serve you. Combine both acronyms to get IDEAL PUPILS, and try to learn what the letters serve as memory pegs for. Acronyms can make the steps much easier to learn and remember.
IDEAL
Bransford and Stein (1984) formulated a heuristic know as IDEAL:I - Identify the problem.
D - Define and represent the problem.
E - Explore possible strategies.
A - Act on the strategies [when you are up to it, when conditions follow suit, etc.]
L - Look back and evaluate the effects of those activities. [see Schunk
1996, 240.]
PUPILS
George Pólya's list of mental operations involved in problem solving is included below as "upil" only. Two more mementos are added; they are 'P' and 'S':P - Peruse well. (Polya's list of operations in problem solving is applied:
U - 1. Understand the problem.
P - 2-. Devise a Plan.
I - 3. Implement the plan, i.e., carry it out.
L - 4. Look back.
(S) - Solve things markedly better after listening and getting feedback
[This item is added by us, and it is in line with general study and solution procedures,
where you adjust or improve outputs on top of feedback etc.]. [see Schunk 1996,
240.]
Systematic Pursuits
On the one hand complete freedom can be very good help for discovering things first-hand. Some progress may be made below that level (of freedom), though. Here comes: IF OTHERS
have done similar things to what you need to do, and in fields that have transfer-value to
yours, study their works and learn from them, for conducting research can be very time and
energy consuming, and unless you're paid it may be much costy too. So it is wise to learn to
learn from others, including interesting mistakes of others.
Have "practical" aims too. [see Schunk 1996, 240.]
The instructional advantage of heuristics lies in helping students become systematic
problem solvers. [Schunk 1996, 240.]
A heuristic may be more systematic than our present problem-solving approaches, and
can lead to better solutions. [Schunk 1996, 240.]
HEURISTICS should help somewhat when facing unfamiliar content, but heuristics is in part built on getting experience in watching other people solving problems as well. And there is flexibility in how steps are carried out. Allow for that. [see Schunk 1996, 240.]
HEURISTICS has been shown to help if you aim at general features in your study, too. [see Schunk 1996, 240.] (1.1 - T+)
Now you can go ahead and master more of it, as you like.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Adjoined
Bign: Bruner, Jerome: Beyond the information given: Studies in the psychology of knowing. Selected, edited, and introduced by Jeremey Anglin. Allen and Unwin, London, 1974.Keo: Kerlinger, Fred: Foundations of Behavioral Research. 2nd ed. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. London, 1973.
Lte: Schunk, Dale: Learning theories. An educational perspective. 2nd ed. Merrill/Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1996.
Proe: Bruner, Jerome: The Process of Education. Harvard University. Cambridge. 1966.
Psr: Feldman, Robert: Social Psychology: Theories, Research, and Applications. Int ed. McGraw-Hill. New York, 1985.
Rla: Pears, David, ed. Russell's Logical Atomism. London: Collins, 1972, p. 48.
Sop: Smith, Eliot R. and Diane M. Mackie:
Social Psychology. 2nd ed. Psychology Press. Hove,
2000.
Thd: Zukav, Gary: The
Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics. Rider. London,
1979.
| Literature | Layout | SITE MAP | First Page |
CLICK on 'Literature' for the references of about 2000 works.
ANNOTATIONS: Acronym letters in square brackets in the text refer to works. Click on 'Literature' above for examples. Page references are put right after reference letters. The abbreviation cf. means "compare". [MORE].
SEARCH THE SITE: Click on the rose in the upper left column for site searches, access to dictionaries, and further.
REFER to the page by its 'location' address (above).
PILOTING: Some pictures and texts on top of the pages are clickable, to ease navigation. [MORE]
| Model | Well's | Disclaimer | |
| © 2000-2004, T. Kinnes — Updated in Summer 2004 | |||