QUESTION:

Dear professor von Glasersfeld,

 

Thank you again. May I reply to your December V

answer as follows. Essentially is, that Piaget's

theory on intelligence is constructed totally

abductionwise! He never used any inferential

statistics or any non-abductionwise inferences.

Piaget worked for Simon en Binet who were the

founding fathers of intelligence-tests which are

based on statistical inferences like the

correlation coefficient. Simon asked Piaget to

standardize tests. But what did Piaget do?

Piaget was not interested in good or false

answers - on which psychometrical tests are

based by using statistical means en

standarddeviations - but on the reasoning of

the child in his answers: he looked at the

reasoning of answers of many children to a

particular question. Then it struck him for

example - an unexpected experience of Piaget!! -

that 11 year olds did not have any problem with

part-whole problems, but all younger ones did!

Why is that so, he asked? He was struck again

and again, and finally came up wit his viable

theory of intelligence which you know so well.

 

And did the sons of the founding fathers came up

with any theory of intellgence? No. All they

came up with was: "intelligence is what this

test measures" - can it more empty? Again, why

is this so? They worked not abductively, but

statistical inferentially. They based their

method on an unviable image of physics - but

physics works abductively all the way, like Piaget.

 

What is meant by "inferential statistics" is

t-test, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Analysis

of Covariance (ANCOVA), regression analysis, and

the multivariate methods like factor analysis,

multidimensional scaling, cluster analysis,

discriminant function analysis, and so on.

 

Your example of "making inferences from the

statistics of observations" i.e. the theory that

all swans are white, is not "inferential

statistics", but if well understood a good

example of abduction! I clarify: one can be

struck by seeing many swans being white; then

one tries to explain this: perhaps all swans are

white; and then one goes to 'proof' it (nothing

absolute implied), that is, one tries to find

more swans and if they are white it is 'proven',

for the time being: the theory becomes acceptyed

as normal fact (nothing absolute implied).

Indeed, it will be no longer viable as,

unexpected in relation to the accepted theory, a

black swan is observed (if the black swan is

observed immediately while trying to 'proof' the

theory, the theory is not viable at any time; viabilty is a

construction!).

 

Regarding you reading me as looking for

"absolute" viability; to my knowledge Newton's theory of

gravitation and the structure of the universe is

also perfectly viable for NASA's enterprises: it

has never been shown unviable by any unexpected

finding at the level of unrelativistic speeds

and by classical mechanical measurements! At

that level it undecidable which theory has

'better cards' (not anything absolute implied, I

repeat explicitely): it has not been superseeded on that level.

The flat earth theory needs not to be replaced

for a farmer. For fishermen traveling far it

needs to be replaced, though. But on a

scientific level the flat earth theory is not

viable for it can be disproven (nothing absolute

implied). So, as said, as long as an explanation

holds empirically (is tenable, viable) it is

accepted as a theory, that is, as long as not a

new unexpected finding comes up.

Respectfully, my suggestion is that you reading

me as looking for absolute viabilty is an

unviable 'theory' of yours about what I am

saying. That can happen; we are all in a proces

of constructing, for the time being.

 

Regarding "the concepts of levers and pulleys

and the mathematical theories to which they led

were constructed for the simple purpose of

moving or lifting heavy objects". You must keep

in mind the purpose of a theory - which is to

explain unexpected findings - and applications of a viable theory.

Regarding "The various theories of aerodynamics

used in the building of cars and

planes were developed for the purpose of

reducing air resistance, not for explaining any

unexpected events": see above. Did you study the

historical development of these theories? Please

give me references to literature. I exepct your

ideas about this development are unviable.

Regarding "There was nothing unexpected about

air resistance, it is a common experiential

fact". Notice, 'common' it has become: you must

turn to the development of children to

understand how they came to the construction of

such a famliar concept as air resistence. I do

not know in what stage they are when they come

to understand it. Children are surprised all the

time - sometimes they keep asking why and why

and why ... - and surprise us all the time...

 

Please your respected comments.

R. Kooyman

The Netherlands

 

 

ANSWER:

 

Dear Mr. Kooijman,

 

Here are some brief answers to your recent letter. They will be my last.

 

Regarding Piaget, it is clear that you have not my read my "Scheme theory

as a key to the learning paradox" in A. Tryphon & J. Vonèche (eds.)

Working with Piaget: Essays in honour of Bärbel Inhelder, (139-146).

London: Psychology Press.

 

As I said the last time, if people who use the intelligence test find it

useful for their purposes, it's viable for them, irrespective of what you

and I think of it.

 

What you say about the white swans seems perfectly compatible with what

I said.

 

The same goes for what you say about the viability of Newton's theory.

But then you contradict it by saying: " the flat earth theory is not

viable for it can be disproven (nothing absolute implied). So,as long as

an explanation hold empirically (is tenable, viable) it is accepted as a

theory, that is, as long as not a new unexpected finding comes up." The

flat earth theory is still perfectly viable for the triangulations in

land surveys - they don't use spherical triangles. And quite a few things

have come up that were not expected by and are not explicable by N's

theory, yet that theory is viable for NASA.

Archimedes developed the mathematics of levers because he and others long

before him had stumbled on the fact that they made lifting things easy;

I don't think it was to "explain" but rather to compile a know-how in

order to use them.

 

As for air resistence, children feel it when they swing their arms

quickly. It's an experiential fact, like things dropping when you let go

of them. I have no references for the history of earodynamics, but i've

seen some sportscar designers at work. They have some formulas involving

surface area and angle, but they are not very much help. The designers

don't care about explanation; they test models in a wind tunnel. It

wasn't a surprising fact that started that research area, but the desire

to make some vehicles go faster.

 

In order for children to be "surprised all the time" they would have to

have expectations about everything. I don't see how they could have,

given the narrow range of their experience. Having seen several grow up,

I believe the opposite: there is very little they don't take in their

stride.

Best wishes

Ernst von Glasersfeld

 

 

BACK | TORNA INDIETRO