This blog will house my musings on society, civilization, and education. Since this is the opening blog, I guess I should explain why I chose the term Doxologist. This is tricky and I want to be honest about how the term is a bit sloppy. If you don't care about the term, you should read other blog posts by me on particular subjects.
The ancient Greeks divided knowledge into three categories: doxa, episteme, and gnosis. One could describe these as what is known from others, what is empirically tested and verified (by you) knowledge, and then experiential knowledge. However, as we know from the term "orthodox" and the branch of philosophy known as epistemology, the distinction between the first two forms of knowledge can be better termed as 'belief' and 'knowledge'. We'll leave the gnosis alone for the moment.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy dedicated to the study of knowledge. But what is knowledge? Epistemology does not limit itself to the area the ancient Greeks considered episteme. Practically speaking, most of us think of knowledge, like what school offers, is a static thing. The knowledge is in the textbook or covered in the course. This is problematic as that makes knowledge an object. What about the subject, namely, the knower.
Michael Polanyi and John Dewey both grappled with problems of static knowledge. Polanyi was concerned with the balance between 'knowledge that' and 'knowledge how'. We can see this as a simple distinction between the sportscaster and an all-star athlete. The former knows, is an expert in, the sport while the latter has expertise in the sport. Polanyi would say we cannot be satisfied with one but must be aware of both. The tedious argument about academics in an ivory tower and those that live in the real world clearly shows us that we still tend to slice knowledge in half and prefer one over the other. John Dewey was concerned with the subject-object relationship of knowledge. He would say that, okay, knowledge is in the textbook (the known) but is only activated through the experience of the subject (the knower). We all take some similar things from a certain textbook, but we also have some of our own takeaways. In this case, knowledge is the transaction between the knower and the known.
Please pardon what may seem a long-winded justification for the term "Doxologist." I am interested in beliefs. I am particularly interested in beliefs that are mobilized as knowledge and knowledge that springs from belief. I think we are a global civilization that has, at least in the elite strata of humanity, essentially swapped science and religion. We believe that things defined as scientific are true and those that are not as mere opinion. But most people don't really understand what science is (I'll talk about that elsewhere). How scientifically do most people live out their lives? Moreover, how significant a role do the things we believe play in our lives?
I do not see that there is, by definition, a conflict between science and religion. I also observe that dogma and orthodoxy show up as, if not more, frequently when people talk about science as they do when people talk about religion. I want to examine how society struggles with belief. In other words, I want to study (-ology) belief (doxa).
Ultimately, I wanted a clever heading under which I might organize my sprawling thoughts about EVERYTHING, and 'doxology' is what I came up with. That would make me a doxologist. Yet, as someone who values growth and learning, I am willing, even in the first blog post, to admit I might decide that my attempt to be clever will turn out to be quite the opposite.