joe:
On the one hand you say you have a high regard for science. In the next paragraph you proceed to attempt to trivialize the cognitive and motor processes involved in hitting a tennis ball that's moving at high speed. I think you ought to book yourself a ticket to silicon valley and meet with the folks at Google. They are spending gazillions of dollars on robotics research, and if you can simplify that for them they will pay you a LOT of money.
Honestly, the rest of your post seems like a "LMGTFY" moment. It's not my job to get you up to speed on the salient aspects of cognitive science. Here are a few terms you can search on and a few books you could read:
The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, K. Anders Ericsson, et al.
Pretty much anything else by K. Anders Ericsson
Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge, Arthur Reber
Nonlinear Pedagogy in Skill Acquisition, Jia Chow, et al.
Dynamics of Skill Acquisition, Keith Davids, et al.
Handbook of Embodied Cognition, M. Cappucino et al.
I could go on.
You could do more than a perfunctory bit of research on: expert intuition and tacit knowledge.
You could explain to top mathematicians how the fact that they cannot explain in words how they think about the math they think about doesn't qualify as "reasoning" in your book.
I have a high regard for Science, the discipline, but not so much for the people who call themselves scientists. Nevertheless, I'd be interested in those definitions if you have them handy.
It's not hard. I could explain it to them. There are two tricks involved. I doubt they would have application to any endeavor other than reaction sports.
On the one hand you say you have a high regard for science. In the next paragraph you proceed to attempt to trivialize the cognitive and motor processes involved in hitting a tennis ball that's moving at high speed. I think you ought to book yourself a ticket to silicon valley and meet with the folks at Google. They are spending gazillions of dollars on robotics research, and if you can simplify that for them they will pay you a LOT of money.
Honestly, the rest of your post seems like a "LMGTFY" moment. It's not my job to get you up to speed on the salient aspects of cognitive science. Here are a few terms you can search on and a few books you could read:
The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, K. Anders Ericsson, et al.
Pretty much anything else by K. Anders Ericsson
Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge, Arthur Reber
Nonlinear Pedagogy in Skill Acquisition, Jia Chow, et al.
Dynamics of Skill Acquisition, Keith Davids, et al.
Handbook of Embodied Cognition, M. Cappucino et al.
I could go on.
You could do more than a perfunctory bit of research on: expert intuition and tacit knowledge.
You could explain to top mathematicians how the fact that they cannot explain in words how they think about the math they think about doesn't qualify as "reasoning" in your book.