It’s always a battle between part and whole. Take brain studies, for example. Neuroscientists keep investigating what purpose a brain’s sundry parts serve.
Thus, we know about a sensory cortex and a motor cortex; we know about Wernicke’s Area and Broca’s Area; and we know about the Amygdala and Hippocampus. In their labs, the researchers keep refining segments and sub-segments. Parts within parts within parts. Psychologists, using what the neuroscientists tell them as a reference, then investigate the whole: How do all these parts work together to produce a psyche, a personality, a behavioral trend, or a functioning person. The rest of us look at phenomena. We, in our daily casual way, investigate how someone else acts in ways that affect us; and sometimes, in moments of self-awareness, we investigate ourselves and how our own actions change us and others.
It’s always a battle between part and whole as we try to make sense of ourselves and our world. That battle might be the reason that we use both deduction and induction to make decisions. Inductively, we see a bunch of parts, figure they are related in some causal way, and reach a conclusion that ostensibly gives us an understanding of a “whole.” As math people tell us, however, any conclusion based on induction is tenuous at best; we can’t know for sure whether or not a pattern will continue indefinitely or infinitely by referring to numerous examples. Yet, we think we do know the whole by the parts with respect to human behavior. “He’s a habitual drinker.” “She’s an addict.” “Both of them are incorrigible criminals.” “There’s no hope for her.”
In a contrasting way, we are certain we see a big picture, and then we go about disassembling its pixels. Usually, that leads us ironically into thinking about parts within parts, and we’re back to induction, having lost sight of the big picture.
A large population uniformly believes twenty-first century people are farther along the path of knowledge than any of their predecessors. There is much to cite in favor of this belief, including our knowing about segments and sub-segments of the brain. Probably, there’s a large population that also believes that they, as individuals and as members of a like-minded group, are farther along the path of understanding. That belief is, of course, the product of induction. Look around you for examples in your associates. The group uses induction to make judgments and decisions, and you, as a member of that group, also conclude through induction. “The parts all point to this,” you conclude. “He’s a biker. What can you expect?” “Of course, she fell into depression. Look at her past.” Induction. It leads to judgment and tenuous conclusions. In people it can lead to hope and despair.
We can’t stop shifting between our foci of part and whole. Many of the “wholes,” however, have come from previous additions of parts, now lost to memory but inculcated in belief. If there’s an imbalance, it favors induction, drawing conclusions and making judgments from parts. So, we go on our merry way thinking we can build parts into wholes. As we uncover more information, the rise in “knowledge” will increase, but understanding will always depend on some point of view, that is, interpreting the parts in respect to some real or imagined “whole.”
You are always in a battle between part and whole.
Thus, we know about a sensory cortex and a motor cortex; we know about Wernicke’s Area and Broca’s Area; and we know about the Amygdala and Hippocampus. In their labs, the researchers keep refining segments and sub-segments. Parts within parts within parts. Psychologists, using what the neuroscientists tell them as a reference, then investigate the whole: How do all these parts work together to produce a psyche, a personality, a behavioral trend, or a functioning person. The rest of us look at phenomena. We, in our daily casual way, investigate how someone else acts in ways that affect us; and sometimes, in moments of self-awareness, we investigate ourselves and how our own actions change us and others.
It’s always a battle between part and whole as we try to make sense of ourselves and our world. That battle might be the reason that we use both deduction and induction to make decisions. Inductively, we see a bunch of parts, figure they are related in some causal way, and reach a conclusion that ostensibly gives us an understanding of a “whole.” As math people tell us, however, any conclusion based on induction is tenuous at best; we can’t know for sure whether or not a pattern will continue indefinitely or infinitely by referring to numerous examples. Yet, we think we do know the whole by the parts with respect to human behavior. “He’s a habitual drinker.” “She’s an addict.” “Both of them are incorrigible criminals.” “There’s no hope for her.”
In a contrasting way, we are certain we see a big picture, and then we go about disassembling its pixels. Usually, that leads us ironically into thinking about parts within parts, and we’re back to induction, having lost sight of the big picture.
A large population uniformly believes twenty-first century people are farther along the path of knowledge than any of their predecessors. There is much to cite in favor of this belief, including our knowing about segments and sub-segments of the brain. Probably, there’s a large population that also believes that they, as individuals and as members of a like-minded group, are farther along the path of understanding. That belief is, of course, the product of induction. Look around you for examples in your associates. The group uses induction to make judgments and decisions, and you, as a member of that group, also conclude through induction. “The parts all point to this,” you conclude. “He’s a biker. What can you expect?” “Of course, she fell into depression. Look at her past.” Induction. It leads to judgment and tenuous conclusions. In people it can lead to hope and despair.
We can’t stop shifting between our foci of part and whole. Many of the “wholes,” however, have come from previous additions of parts, now lost to memory but inculcated in belief. If there’s an imbalance, it favors induction, drawing conclusions and making judgments from parts. So, we go on our merry way thinking we can build parts into wholes. As we uncover more information, the rise in “knowledge” will increase, but understanding will always depend on some point of view, that is, interpreting the parts in respect to some real or imagined “whole.”
You are always in a battle between part and whole.
RSS Feed