One thing that stood out to me was the difference in the method of explanation between Practical Attention and the more modern Attention: Theory and Practice. Practical Attention lays out an explanation of attention and educational methods which is not well cited or supported by anything except anecdotes, but it makes sense and seems logical, regardless of whether or not it is correct in its assumptions. When Attention: Theory and Practice talks about modern theories of attention, the knowledge presented is perhaps less intuitive, but is always supported by citation to (hopefully) sound research. Practical Attention may be wrong in some of its assumptions, but all of them made sense to me as I was reading. Sometimes I find myself wondering how ancient peoples managed to believe things that we know today to be obviously false (such as the animal-spirit theory, for one), but things like Practical Attention are the answer. Explanations for certain things that make sense seem to be correct; it is easy to accept them. The problem is that many explanations which make sense can be conceived and not all of them are going to be correct. This is why the scientific method of testing logical assumptions to see if they hold up is important.
Another thing I found interesting in Practical Attention was the relationship discussed between unknown language and attention; I had never really thought about it before, but I think it's valid. Tristram Shandy is hard for me to focus on for any prolonged period of time, but I can read more modern texts easily. It also gives me some hope that slogging through Tristram Shandy as well as the other centuries-old texts in class will become easier over time.
Tristram Shandy is written in a different dialect of English than people speak today, and this makes it hard to understand for the unaccustomed. Older texts are yet more deviant from modern language. Because thought is so closely tied to language for most people, this leads me to wonder if the evolution of language has also caused an evolution in structure of thought over the centuries, faster than genetic evolution. It is possible that people today think in completely different ways than people two hundred years ago, but of course it is impossible to know for sure. Literature from different periods tells us some things, but literature is only the output of a mind, not the inner workings. Studies of differences in thinking in native speakers of different languages could perhaps shed some light on the study of this subject.
Interesting post. Have you heard of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? Your ideas about linguistic changes structuring thought remind me of that.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see you provide some evidence for your hypothesis that somehow, the differences in language between the time that Tristram Shandy was written and today reflect differences in thought. I'm skeptical of the idea, for a number of reasons, but I'd like to first have some clarification on what you mean.
You mention that you were surprised that people clung to ideas like the "animal spirits" in nerves for so long - referring, I'm supposing, to the C.U.M. Smith article. I think one might an answer in the fact that science is very much a social process, and at the time was an especially disjointed process. The philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn describes how in each field, before a single paradigm manages to take precedence, there is usually a period where each scientist proposes and makes a case for his own theory, each of which emphasizes a limited set of the data. I think understanding this process might help understand how ideas about "animal spirits", which we now consider silly, persisted for so long after they were "disproven".