Firstly a confession of sorts. I consider myself to be eclectic. I also consider myself to have validity, in the sense that understand where I am drawing my source material from and why I am doing it. This leads to the question in the title. Am I right in considering my own style of eclecticism to have validity, to have intellectual rigour. Do I, through my eclecticism, add value to the work of others, or am I simply indulging in underlying narcicisstic tendancies whether conciously or sub-conciously? Defining eclecticism is not as easy as it may at first appear. It should be the study of a broad range of ideas, philosophies, theories and the like in order to draw together the parts that are worthy and in so doing create something more complete, or more appropriate, or simply better. Eclecticism is found in many walks of life from psychology through philosophy and the sciences to theology, and the definition seems to be somewhat flexible, particularly when you look at the range of people who profess ecelecticism and what they actually do.
There has long been a suggestion that eclecticism is actually a "magpie" path whereby one who is unsatisfied by the current mainstream theories seeks to borrow ideas and/or images in a haphazard fashion to weave a new or at least apparently new paradigm. I think the reason for my question is in part because of my exposure to many people of this type who, for a variety of reasons, don't seem to act with the necessary rigour that ecelecticism demands. The physicist Richard Feynman one gave a talk at CalTech at which he warned of the vagaries of "Cargo cult science" and I think there is a strong danger that eclecticism falls into this trap. He suggested that certainly within the sciences it was essential that research was carried out from a position of scrupulous honesty, far more than is present in everyday life, and further he suggested that a part of this honesty had to be self honesty. This seems obvious, but is it? Let us suppose that I am a physicist who believes that I have hit upon a fundamental discovery that will change the way in which the Universe is perceived. I work on my theory over a period of time, gradually becoming more and more certain of my belief. Lets say that this work extends to a period of years. I have invested significantly of myself into this theory, it has consummed me to the exclusion of many of lifes more appealing pleasures.
Now let us suppose that it turns out that I was wrong. Does the possibility not exist that I would continue to follow my beliefs even in the face of contradictory evidence, perhaps not even knowingly, perhaps being so goal fixated that I simply cannot see the contradictions, or perhaps having invested so much, unwilling to accept my error no matter what the cost. Now lets suppose that I am not a scientist, not imbued with the intellectual rigour that scientific training provides, subject to the distractions and pressures of modern life, and I have developed a theory, based on other peoples thoughts. How much easier would it be to delude myself, again whether knowingly or unwittingly? I think this is at the root of my concerns.
In the short form of a blog post it is often difficult to fully explore ideas so I will be brief. In my opinion eclecticism is a path fraught with difficulty and challenge. It is one in which there can be no excuses for self-delusion. Where there can be no shortcut to inspiration. Where there can be no room for notions of pride or ego. The only way to give validity to an eclectic position is to constantly strive to analyse and question every thought, every theory, every development, and to constantly allow yourself the possibility of being wrong, or of your source material being wrong. For me, there is a doubt that there is a "Theory of everything" and as long as that doubt exists no-one has all of the answers so the best solution for me is to understand as many of the, often, conflicting answers out there, and to select from them those that seem most "right" to me. That, for me is the nature of validity in eclecticism......
There has long been a suggestion that eclecticism is actually a "magpie" path whereby one who is unsatisfied by the current mainstream theories seeks to borrow ideas and/or images in a haphazard fashion to weave a new or at least apparently new paradigm. I think the reason for my question is in part because of my exposure to many people of this type who, for a variety of reasons, don't seem to act with the necessary rigour that ecelecticism demands. The physicist Richard Feynman one gave a talk at CalTech at which he warned of the vagaries of "Cargo cult science" and I think there is a strong danger that eclecticism falls into this trap. He suggested that certainly within the sciences it was essential that research was carried out from a position of scrupulous honesty, far more than is present in everyday life, and further he suggested that a part of this honesty had to be self honesty. This seems obvious, but is it? Let us suppose that I am a physicist who believes that I have hit upon a fundamental discovery that will change the way in which the Universe is perceived. I work on my theory over a period of time, gradually becoming more and more certain of my belief. Lets say that this work extends to a period of years. I have invested significantly of myself into this theory, it has consummed me to the exclusion of many of lifes more appealing pleasures.
Now let us suppose that it turns out that I was wrong. Does the possibility not exist that I would continue to follow my beliefs even in the face of contradictory evidence, perhaps not even knowingly, perhaps being so goal fixated that I simply cannot see the contradictions, or perhaps having invested so much, unwilling to accept my error no matter what the cost. Now lets suppose that I am not a scientist, not imbued with the intellectual rigour that scientific training provides, subject to the distractions and pressures of modern life, and I have developed a theory, based on other peoples thoughts. How much easier would it be to delude myself, again whether knowingly or unwittingly? I think this is at the root of my concerns.
In the short form of a blog post it is often difficult to fully explore ideas so I will be brief. In my opinion eclecticism is a path fraught with difficulty and challenge. It is one in which there can be no excuses for self-delusion. Where there can be no shortcut to inspiration. Where there can be no room for notions of pride or ego. The only way to give validity to an eclectic position is to constantly strive to analyse and question every thought, every theory, every development, and to constantly allow yourself the possibility of being wrong, or of your source material being wrong. For me, there is a doubt that there is a "Theory of everything" and as long as that doubt exists no-one has all of the answers so the best solution for me is to understand as many of the, often, conflicting answers out there, and to select from them those that seem most "right" to me. That, for me is the nature of validity in eclecticism......
No comments:
Post a Comment