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.
Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:48:00 am
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".
Tuesday, June 06, 2006 4:06:00 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Philosophy of Al Qaeda

People out there seem pretty interested in the philosophy of Al Qaeda. Three of my most recent hits have involved searches on those words. Mine is the top-ranked page when "Al-Qaeda" is spelled with a hyphen, and the second-ranked page when it is not. And my page was only referring to someone else's blog page in the first place! So let's talk about the philosophy of Al Qaeda. Paul Berman wrote an excellent article about it. He identifies Sayyid Qutb as the most important philosopher behind the movement. Qutb is Qaeda's intellectual hero, its "Karl Marx". In this respect, Qutb's best known work is Milestones , his Das Kapital . Berman, however, calls attention to Qutb's deeper work, the enormous In the Shade of the Koran . It is full of literary beauty and deep ideas. Just because ideas are deep, however, does not mean that they are true, and many of Qutb's ideas, Berman argues, are indeed false. Qutb opposes the separation of church and s...
Read more

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Do you see any conflict between your spending considerable money on the care of your mother and your principle of spreading out wealth to help the most people? Yes. In a sense, my spending money on my mother's care is in conflict with that principle. But so is the fact that I flew back to Australia to visit my daughters at Christmas. That money could also be better spent elsewhere. I've never claimed that I live my life perfectly in accordance with those principles of sharing my money as much as I should. Interview with Peter Singer by Princeton Alumni Weekly , January 26, 2000. Is Peter Singer a hypocrite? Lonnie Lee Best, from his excellent web page on " The Psychology of Hypocrisy ", defines a hypocrite as 'a person whose actions contradict his or her stated or internal beliefs. (Or vice versa.)' From the sections on " Singer's Mother " and " Singer's Donations ", it seems clear enough that Singer falls into this cat...
Read more

Commensurability 5.0

Key concept: commensurability Dictionary Definition: measurability by a common standard (Based on definition of "commensurable" in WordNet 2.0 .) Substantive Account: of a claim, measurability of its truth or falsity by a common standard that falls along a continuum of degrees, or levels , of conduciveness to non-coercive agreement. I distinguish the following four levels: Level 1 Keyword: Commonality. UPDATE 2014/12/28: Could also be triviality. Necessary and sufficient condition: Pre-existing agreement about truth or falsity of claim. Examples: "The Pope is Catholic" is at level 1 because of pre-existing agreement of its truth. "The moon is made of green cheese" is at level 1 because of pre-existing agreement of its falsity. Additionally, non-trivial claims can be at level 1 relative to a particular discussion. For example, assumptions made in a scientific paradigm are at level 1 relative to all who share that paradigm. Level 2 Keywor...
Read more