Four types of thinking

One can classify human thinking into four basic types. Imagine a grid of four squares. The left column is the theory column and the right column is the practice column. The top row is the theory row and the bottom row is the practice row. Now number the four squares from one to four, from left to right and from top to bottom. This gives you the four different types of thinking.

Type one thinking is theory-to-theory. This type is exemplified by pure mathematics and, in some forms, philosophy. It begins with pure theoretical principles, and derive further principles from them.

Type two thinking is theory-to-practice. This type is exemplified by engineering and applied mathematics. It starts with pure theoretical principles, and uses them to derive practical aims.

Type three thinking is practice-to-theory. This type is exemplified by empirical science. Empirical science starts with observations of the world, from which hypotheses, and eventually theories, are formed.

Type four thinking is practice-to-practice. This includes most of what usually gets called common sense. Suppose that one goes to the train station on one day and discovers that one's train is late. Perhaps one has observed this to be a common occurrence. Consequently, one resolves to arrive at the platform earlier to catch the earlier train. This is type four thinking. One has started with practical observations, and drawn practical conclusions. All acts of simple induction fall under type four thinking. So does intuition about what to expect in a situation that has developed from experience. Type four thinking is generally the most prized thinking by employers. It comes with experience and provides practical skills.

Comments

jj mollo said…
There's no way to make that type 4 link without an intervening theory, or theories. You've got to know that trains run on a schedule and imagine that whatever causes this train to be late also effects the previous train.
Geoff said…
I do not say that there is not. I do not think that it matters for this four-way distinction to be valid. Surely there is an enormous difference between the type of "theory" that one could not help accumulating by relating experience to action, and the type of "theory" that one reflectively constructs and builds as part of an essentially academic tradition. They might have little in common except for being described by the word "theory".

Popular posts from this blog

The Philosophy of Al Qaeda

Am I a reductive or non-reductive naturalist?

Commensurability 5.0