Opinion

Man: Looking for Solutions for A Huge Problem

Almada F¹*, Fernando C², and Vicente A³

¹Retired University Professor/Independent Researcher, Portugal

²University of Madeira, Portugal

³University of Beira Interior, Portugal

Submission:September 9, 2020; Published:December 09, 2020

*Corresponding author:Almada F, Retired University Professor / Independent Researcher, Portugal

How to cite this article:Almada F, Fernando C, Vicente A. Man: Looking for Solutions for A Huge Problem. J Phy Fit Treatment & Sports. 2020; 8(4): 555743. DOI: 10.19080/JPFMTS.2020.07.555743

Keywords:Dialectics; Popper; Burned at the stake; Deliberations; Resolutions; Decisions; Intentions; Intents

Opinion

Framework

A problem is a problem, some will say. In this way there are no huge problems and small problems. However, … It will certainly not be due to the number of variables that the problem contains - this number, as well as the precision with which they are treated, the dialectics that are established, and are considered or ignored, by the methodologies that are used and even by the errors that are committed (there are always mistakes, some that we accept because they are part of the constraints we have when we investigate, others because we are not infallible and that is why we have to make sure that the flaws are, as much as possible, identified and clogged). It will certainly not be because some sciences are exact (and, therefore, others are not); or because they are part of life (which certainly includes the inherent death); or because they are natural and from the environment, which some separate from the sciences of man and society (human and social or social and human -? - because it is not indifferent), which certainly introduces distortions because it separates man from the nature (with the resulting consequences); or, in another perspective, by some who consider themselves more pragmatic, with a classification that separates the natural sciences from engineering and technology sciences, social sciences, humanities sciences, and so on, with boundaries drawn with “ruler and square” (forgetting what happened, and it is happening, when it was done at the borders of countries), which, moreover, some take very seriously.

Now the classifications (as the French say regarding excuses - “les excuses sont faite pour s’en servir”) are nothing more than instruments, tools that must be adapted to the work we intend to do and not the reverse, as so many still intend to force. Many other examples of the dysfunctionalities that science still shows could be presented, but we think it is enough.

However, … Let’s move on to the solutions, with an almost culinary recipe - a little critical sense and a hint of humor (sometimes difficult in the face of ignorance, ... or worse) and, what is even more difficult to obtain, a good dose of common sense accompanied for four or five cups of good taste and we can easily see that the triple phenomenon / signal / observer relationship proposed by Einstein for these difficulties, the conjecture and refutation “of” Popper, which refutes the positivists ‘certainties (there are still some, it is true), Kuhn’s’ scientific revolutions, with their breaks and paradigm shifts and also the weight of the instruments (conceptual and material) that Ian Hacking warns us about, allow us to leave behind the concerns and discussions that still shake outdated institutions and make some “endangered species” vibrate (these… fortunately endangered species). [Authors’ note: not to mention that they are still “burned at the stake”, almost literally, many more scientists than some unwary may think].

Defined The Framework We Will Treat A Huge Problem

Man (life) is the result of an evolutionary process resulting from millions of years of dialectics, conflicts and confrontations. Banality? Yes of course! But the consequences of this banality are not always considered, the causalities are seldom reflected and analyzed and the effects, even when evident, are rarely considered and assumed. Certainly for the reasons that appear in the framework that we’ve presented above and, also, because a deterministic view that conceives the “world” as something of a pre-established and fixed aspect hinders the perception that we can remove from looking at the whole process from different perspectives and points of view , with such a critical sense and a hint of humor (which would allow us to avoid being considered too serious), and the common sense and good taste that would make it possible to understand how ignorant we are still about the world around us and about man himself, what, at least, should alert us to the mistakes we’ve made and the failures that we must seek to define and bridge ... as far as possible.

Let us consider, then, an evolutionary process that has purposes (deliberations, resolutions, decisions, intentions, intents) but is not subject to intentionality’s, this without a definite sense previously defined that determines a line of evolution, which does not mean that there are no laws and principles that indicate trends (not obligations, that is, they are not conductors, but they show how the reactions will happen because they are not random, so it was possible to define both physics and chemistry, for example) in the established dialectics (although , we must not forget, today it is considered that there may be processes underlying and prior to a decision and escape the conscience and define “reasons” that “we still ignore”) - the “such errors” that we still have to accept as possible... yet. Dialogue and debate, perhaps more than analysis (even if followed by an attempt at synthesis) allow us to scratch (as experts in different areas do, in field works, in the search for remains and fossils that allow us to try to understand this evolutionary process of man) the “terrains” where we can find artifacts that make it possible to read the evolution of man, not only to understand the past, but also, perhaps above all, to be able to reach the foundations of the present and even of the future, because the dialectics of construction are timeless and, more than incidents, the mastery of principles and laws that the processes obey allows us to build more solid models and “visions”, and less conditioned by the existing “certainties”, and even more open conceptions (and solid, again) of what imagination or fantasy itself can achieve. In this line we will compare and confront two situations (extreme and opposite - justified below) that are an integral part of this evolutionary process of man - food and education.

Food & Education

As mentioned above, for millions of years, education and food were determining factors in the evolutionary process of man. Let us compare the dynamics of two fundamental factors in man’s life, as we can see that although nature (an ambiguous concept as we saw above), look for answers that can cover a wide scope as possible (a factor of management profitability), there are differences that are indicators of functional specificities, which we cannot ignore and it is important to reference. In both cases cited here, strategies have been developed, even though there is little awareness of this, which is an advantage, as the ability to focus attention on some issues is limited (although, on the contrary, it requires careful introspection so that we can identify). An advantage because we can then identify those strategies that were developed and respond to the challenges that were presented and with the means available (as we all know, research often uses artifacts that make it possible to recognize dysfunctionalities that are sometimes difficult to identify otherwise).

The dialectics that were establishing themselves, not randomly but by implication (will intricate) from previous processes, generated transformations in the participants of the existing relationship (people and contexts), with “points of instability” (not the “data with which god didn’t play” by Einstein) that with the intervention of more or less some variables could lead to different directions in the bifurcations. With the consequent sequences, which led to what we can observe today (seeing is another thing because it depends on the observer’s availability for the existing signals - again the triple relation presented by Einstein mentioned above). So, we must consider:

• From a process development / optimization perspective:

The Education

Strategies have been developed over millions of years, such as the ability to imitate, the pleasure of playing, the interest in acquiring and accumulating information (in addition to memory, writing, image,...) and its transformation into knowledge and wisdom, language itself, etc. Factors that enhanced the actions developed based on the existing antecedents, which were always changing, if not for the passage of time, but usually also for the appearance of new instruments (material and conceptual), changes in the context (either by structural changes, or by the man himself moving and implanting in other places), etc.

However, despite the enormous development of knowledge (which does not mean that we know everything, far from it, we just shallow the surface of knowledge and man’s knowledge), we continue to train (drill) and learn by living situations that we consider identical to those that we would like to have (without worrying about understanding the active principles that make the change) and despite the immensity of knowledge that we can access quickly and economically, we continue to “educate” by limiting ourselves to providing accompanied content programs of speeches of “good - ?? – intentions” and moralizing appeals with purely ideological foundations because we have not mastered the understanding of the deep foundations of man’s functionality (which would explain how and why man transforms) and would allow to seek, debate, plan, etc., the most efficient sets of stimuli given the objectives pursued (which we also have difficulty in defining if we leave the purely ideological discourses that should meant little).

The Feeding

Where strategies for the establishment of likes and dislikes have also been developed over millions of years, which (strangely) manage to go beyond short-term effects and even pass from generation to generation, even when contact with parents has been lost completely, which is surprising to say the least. Stimuli such as flavors, smells, colors, consistencies, aspects, and so many other characteristics of foods that we still know so little about (see how the fashions of “doing good” change), as well as the effects that the different components of food cause in man (the active ingredients, considering the terminology used in medicine).

However, “packages” are constituted with a so-called cultural character, or even religious, which have a functional meaning and achieve homogeneity with the context (climatic, geographical, economic, etc.), with norms and rules that allow a simple use and even unconscious that responds to the needs of individuals. • From a social relation / aggregation perspective: Both education and food are factors of relationship and social aggregation, a function that they fulfill in addition to the more direct objectives such as those just described above.

The Education

The education and training of man (complementary functions) is a factor of relationship and social aggregator (and, therefore, when it does not work or works badly, in this perspective, also for its opposite), constituting an “active principle” for this purpose. As a promoter of cohesion (or as we said, of its reverse) education has developed techniques and processes that have evolved over millions of years in parallel with the transformations experienced by man. Empirically tested, evaluated its efficiency through the results obtained in the most diverse contexts and forms, education and its rites and liturgies, has always been seen in the light of the accepted beliefs in the societies in which it develops and vulgarizes. bHowever, the deep reasons (the basic functionalities) on which it is based and from where the educational / formative effect and its aggregating function result, are (we confess) unknown. See the difficulty of understanding why certain synergies are established between human beings, what we generically call “features” and “defects”, the different “moods” that are established between people…

The Feeding

The coexistence and sharing that can exist during a meal or other forms of feeding together creates, in conjunction with established protocols, communication channels that are often recognizable in “animal behavior”. As in education, rituals and liturgies were developed, which have been tested over time and adjusted according to needs. Feeding as a Cohesion factor has great functional similarities with what happens in education. However, in either case, we repeat, the deep reasons (the basic functionalities) on which all its processes are based and from which they result are (we confess) unknown. From a perspective of creating safeguards to protect against flaws that may exist.

The Education

Safeguards developed “naturally” to prevent errors or correct failures are, in the case of education, virtually nonexistent. The resulting effects often lead one or two generations to sort out their effects. But it is certainly not this gap that causes this lack of safeguards to correct errors or flaws in the process. In food we have identical situations that, as indicated above, span several generations and even constitute taboos that are not normally overcome.

The Feeding

In terms of food, we have a vast set of appetites and rejections that constitute safeguards for an efficient use of the food process. In this way, defenses are created which, in the short, but also in the long term, allow to identify and reject or activate protective mechanisms (vomiting, diarrhea, feeling of disgust, etc.) that protect the individual even when the relationship between risk and its effects is not immediate (which is obviously not a simple process). The knowledge we have of the food / man relationship (as in all other areas of knowledge) still does not allow sufficient security for the process to be managed without due care, in a rigid way (as some claim) and we have to rely on safeguard perceptions (where they exist, and as we have seen in education, they are very vague). See how even a few years ago we still ignored the existence and function of the microbiome and the importance it has in man’s life; just as, in another example, knowledge of the nervous system and its functions has evolved enormously in recent years.

In Conclusion

Despite all the difficulties and obstacles that we have been giving and indicating in the FRAMEWORK, to show in a succinct way the difficulties and dysfunctionalities that still occur in the development of the scientific process, we believe we can affirm that a greater commitment is needed in the definition and dissemination of broader frames of reference than those in which much of the focus is today.

Certainly, the construction of broader and more open scenarios increases the risks and has to face greater difficulties in terms of the methodologies that can (should) be used, but the efficiency thus provided will undoubtedly increase the pragmatism of the results obtained and even the results of practical information that can be generated. This produces, we believe, a favorable relationship between risks and gains - greater risks, but, proportionally, also greater gains, at a time when science suffers from a lack of credibility in its application and utility function. After a period of predominance of positivism (personal safeguarding imposed), we have still not managed to make the necessary breaks, either in the scientific structures, in the literacy of those who benefit from science, or in the “scientific culture” and ways of using it so that the scientific process is triggered in an efficient and useful way.

We have presented, to address the issues and be succinct, the examples of food and education. But we could run a huge range of other examples, such as health, sport, management, politics, etc., fields in which man is so often the phenomenon, the signal and the observer and in which, therefore, understanding its profound functionalities (the reasons why it acts, how it acts and what it acts for) is a fundamental and decisive leap for knowledge, in all fields and areas of knowledge, and so it can evolve and gain strength and applicability.