Dale Easley's Favorite Quotations

Dale Easley's Favorite Quotations

de Bono, Edward

I am Right-- You are Wrong

de Bono, Edward

The purpose of science is not to analyse or describe but to make useful models of the world. A model is useful if it allows us to get use out of it. Use is not confined to predictions of behaviour but also to interventions. [p.77]

Each of three people is holding a small block of pine wood. The first person releases the block and it falls to the ground. The second person releases the block and it moves upward. The third person releases the block and it remains in exactly the same place. Someone is reporting this to you over the telephone. In the first place the behaviour is expected. In the second case the behaviour is bizarre. In the third case the behaviour is simply unbelievable. This is because you assume that all three cases are taking place in the same universe.
It turns out that the first person is standing on the surface of the earth, so the wood falls to the ground. The second person happens to be standing under water, so naturally the wood floats upwards. This is perfectly normal and logical in that situation. The third person is in an orbiting spacecraft with zero gravity, so the piece of wood stays just where it has been released. This is also normal and logical in that universe. [p.60]

In English there are not many gradations in use between `friend' and `enemy' and between `like' and `dislike'. There are many ways we can describe in-between gradations but that is description after the event. An Innuit language in Northern Canada might have twenty gradations between `friend' and `enemy'. There is even one word to convey: `I like you very much but I wouldn't want to go seal hunting with you.' Such a word allows the observer to perceive another person in that way.
The mind can see only what it is prepared to see. The brain has to use existing patterns and catchments. When we believe that we are analysing data we are really only trying out our stock of existing ideas to see which one might fit. It is true that if our stock of ideas is rich then our analysis will be adequate.
But the analysis of data will not by itself produce new ideas. This is a rather important point, because the whole basis of science and progress is based on the belief that the analysis of data will produce all the ideas we need in order to move forward. In fact, the creator of new ideas must do a lot of `idea work' in his or her mind and then check our these ideas against the data. Just analysing the data is not enough. [pp. 16--17]

The traditional view is that you should read all you can in order to get the base of existing knowledge and then move forward from this. There is a flaw in this argument and it is a flaw in the scientific method. We do not just get knowledge packaged up as concepts and perceptions. In the table-top model, knowledge is there like items on a table top. We can play around with the items. in hte self-organizing paterning model, knowledge is inextricably packaged as concepts ad perceptions. Together these concepts and perceptions give what Thomas Kuhn called paradigms.
Why does big progress often come from the innocents in a field or indeed from a different discipline? The history of the new science of chaos is full of such examples. This is not just a matter of the establishment wishing to defend its own turf. The problem is one of seguence. Patterning machines are really history machines. Patterns are formed directly according to the sequence of experience. The pieces are already joined up, they are not free to be moved around as in the table-top model. This is the very essence of the nature of self-organizing systems. [p.98]

In Great Britain an Indian developed a rare form of skin condition in which the skin loses all pigment (vitiligo). In effect he became `white'. This permitted him unusual insights into being both brown and white in one lifetime. His comment was that very often (in the area in which he lived) people were so ready to see racial discrimination that ordinary rudeness by a shop assistant would always be interpreted in this way. [p.127]

I am Right-- You are Wrong
de Bono, Edward
The purpose of science is not to analyse or describe but to make useful models of the world. A model is useful if it allows us to get use out of it. Use is not confined to predictions of behaviour but also to interventions. [p.77] Each of three people is holding a small block of pine wood. The first person releases the block and it falls to the ground. The second person releases the block and it moves upward. The third person releases the block and it remains in exactly the same place. Someone is reporting this to you over the telephone. In the first place the behaviour is expected. In the second case the behaviour is bizarre. In the third case the behaviour is simply unbelievable. This is because you assume that all three cases are taking place in the same universe. It turns out that the first person is standing on the surface of the earth, so the wood falls to the ground. The second person happens to be standing under water, so naturally the wood floats upwards. This is perfectly normal and logical in that situation. The third person is in an orbiting spacecraft with zero gravity, so the piece of wood stays just where it has been released. This is also normal and logical in that universe. [p.60] In English there are not many gradations in use between `friend' and `enemy' and between `like' and `dislike'. There are many ways we can describe in-between gradations but that is description after the event. An Innuit language in Northern Canada might have twenty gradations between `friend' and `enemy'. There is even one word to convey: `I like you very much but I wouldn't want to go seal hunting with you.' Such a word allows the observer to perceive another person in that way. The mind can see only what it is prepared to see. The brain has to use existing patterns and catchments. When we believe that we are analysing data we are really only trying out our stock of existing ideas to see which one might fit. It is true that if our stock of ideas is rich then our analysis will be adequate. But the analysis of data will not by itself produce new ideas. This is a rather important point, because the whole basis of science and progress is based on the belief that the analysis of data will produce all the ideas we need in order to move forward. In fact, the creator of new ideas must do a lot of `idea work' in his or her mind and then check our these ideas against the data. Just analysing the data is not enough. [pp. 16--17] The traditional view is that you should read all you can in order to get the base of existing knowledge and then move forward from this. There is a flaw in this argument and it is a flaw in the scientific method. We do not just get knowledge packaged up as concepts and perceptions. In the table-top model, knowledge is there like items on a table top. We can play around with the items. in hte self-organizing paterning model, knowledge is inextricably packaged as concepts ad perceptions. Together these concepts and perceptions give what Thomas Kuhn called paradigms. Why does big progress often come from the innocents in a field or indeed from a different discipline? The history of the new science of chaos is full of such examples. This is not just a matter of the establishment wishing to defend its own turf. The problem is one of seguence. Patterning machines are really history machines. Patterns are formed directly according to the sequence of experience. The pieces are already joined up, they are not free to be moved around as in the table-top model. This is the very essence of the nature of self-organizing systems. [p.98] In Great Britain an Indian developed a rare form of skin condition in which the skin loses all pigment (vitiligo). In effect he became `white'. This permitted him unusual insights into being both brown and white in one lifetime. His comment was that very often (in the area in which he lived) people were so ready to see racial discrimination that ordinary rudeness by a shop assistant would always be interpreted in this way. [p.127]

email me at [email protected]

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws