Russ says,
Richard Feynman said that
"Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the
way the world is." To the extent that it achieves that goal, science works
even without individual self-awareness. That's really quite an accomplishment,
to have created a way of being in the world that succeeds reasonably well
without having to depend on individual subjective honesty.
[ph] Gee, how
fatefully untrue that seems after this past week. The general failure
of science to explain why perpetual explosive growth is an impossible task (and
dead end for both our life support systems and the ecologies of the planet) is
at the least a demonstration of some confused subjectivity in approaching the
problem. Failing to point out the hazard of driving our
world to collapse isn’t something that fits the description “succeeds
reasonably well” to me.
For the most part, if we aren't honest with ourselves and with each other, we
all suffer negative consequences. Now that I've written that, it seems to me
that "honesty with oneself" is not a bad definition of
"self-awareness." Another way of putting it is that self-awareness is
what keeps us from fooling ourselves about our subjective experience. Contrast
this with Feynman's definition.
[ph] If that’s
not actually possible, though, and it’s more reasonable to assume that
your own subjectivity can’t be got rid of, maybe we’d then show
interest in how every run of every experiment misbehaves a little, and may
actually demonstrate that every theory it’s designed to demonstrate is an
over-simplification…
Science works reasonably well even without individual self-awareness in that it
relies on community self-verification. In some ways science is the
self-awareness of a community of people about what can be known about the
world. Obviously science is not about everything -- in particular
inter-personal values. But within its domain I think it does a pretty good job
of keeping everyone involved reasonably honest -- and especially keeping the
community as a whole reasonably honest. There are failures and detours. But
they are usually corrected.
[ph] Group thinking is
good for some kinds of validation, but is also a major distraction, imposing all
kinds of it’s own persistent subjectivities to prevent open inquiry.
One thing not so honest in science is that we virtually never discuss the
influence of the funding source in determining results, though I hear it
whispered as side comments when papers are presented and such. Just
the fact that the conclusion is usually defined as ‘solving the problem’
rather than ‘finding the problem’, before the grant is given seems
like a real problem. It’s like all the TED talks where people only
allowed, persistently instructed from the sound it, to accentuate the ‘positive’.
That way or so many others, we’re protected from hearing of
the uncertainties or unanswered questions researchers have, which is what the
most active threads of thinking would need to connect with but are kept missing
for sponsor sensitivities and social pressure it seems.
I hadn't intended my original post to be about science. It was about the
importance of self-awareness when dealing with political and governance issues.
But now that we are talking about science it's an interesting comparison.
Perhaps that's why science has been so successful. It's a methodology that
isn't ultimately dependent on individual human honesty. Can we say that about
anything else?
[ph] Were it
true! This basic problem of science, trying to represent nature as
made of the consistent patterns in our information, has been a highly fascinating
and useful endeavor in the past. That we approached knowledge
that way has also gotten mankind in enormous trouble too, missing things that
can’t be represented that way. I don’t think what
sustains the illusion that reality is a kind of information is entirely honest.
Perception does definitely
get in the way, but also a definite laziness about what we choose to observe
and what is more optional. Take everyone’s decided uncertainty
about whether increasing things makes them larger or not... etc. If
you change the physical thing, but keep the stereotype for it, does it
matter? Maybe it’s optional!! Does the unobserved
tree fall in the woods in its own time or remain standing forever? Maybe
that’s the question. I trust your guess on that
is about as good as mine, but we might need to compare notes on some others!
Phil
-- Russ
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Orlando Leibovitz <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Hello Russ,
Is your comment below what you what mean by self awareness? If not could you
describe it? Sorry if I missed this definition in an earlier email.
O
Russ Abbott wrote:
Perhaps so, but for the most part
I think of scientists as intellectually honest, as doing as good a job as they
know how to do, and as willing to change their minds in the face of contrary
evidence.
-- Russ
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Phil Henshaw <[hidden email]> wrote:
Russ,
Oh, just that scientists appear
to be one of the main violators of your self-awareness principle.
Scientists tend to describe the physical world as if they are
unaware that science constructs descriptive models of things far too complex to
model, that might behave differently from any kind of model we know how to
invent. That has us spending a disproportionate
amount of time looking into our theories for the behavior of the world around
us (under the streetlight for the keys lost in the alley) and letting our
skills in watching physical systems atrophy.
Do you see the connection?
Is it partly accurate?
Phil Henshaw
From: Russ Abbott [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 4:04 PM
To: [hidden email]
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness
I'm sorry, Phil, I'm missing your point.
How does your comment relate to my argument that self-awareness is a primary
good and a possible way around the difficulty most people have with critical
thinking?
-- Russ
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Phil Henshaw <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well Russ, what if a group of
scientists were to acknowledge that science actually just seems to be
descriptive after all..., and looking through the holes one seems able to
actually see signs of a physical world after all! Than
sort of 'emperor's new clothes' moment might be enough to turn everyone's
attention to value of self-critical thinking wouldn't it?!
;-)
Phil
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 10:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]>
wrote:
So the first step is for each individual to accept their responsibility
to think/speak critically at every opportunity. The next step is to
package such critical thinking inside an infectious wrapper so that
it spreads across all humanity.
Yes, if it worked it would be wonderful. I'm cynical enough to
doubt that it would succeed. (1) I doubt that we can find a wrapper infectious
enough and (2) even if we did, I doubt that the population as a whole is
capable of the level of critical thinking that we need. (That's elitism, isn't
it.)
Demagoguery almost always seems to succeed. Can anything be done about that?
More discouraging is that advertising is cleaned up demagoguery. And
advertising will always be with us.
Just to be sure I knew what I was talking about (critical thinking?) I just
looked up "demagoguery": "impassioned appeals to the prejudices
and emotions of the populace."
Prejudice and emotion will always be with us -- even the least prejudiced and
least a prisoner of their emotions. Besides, without emotion, we can't
even make decisions. (That's clearly another discussion, but it's worth
noting.)
So can we really complain about superficial prejudice and emotion when we are
all subject to it at some level?
Perhaps the need is for self-awareness -- and even more for having a high
regard for self-awareness -- so that one can learn about one's prejudices and
emotions and stand back from them when appropriate. Can we teach
that? (It helps to have good role models. Obviously we have had exactly
the opposite in our current president.)
Actually, though, a high regard for self-awareness might be easier to teach
than critical thinking. So perhaps there is hope. But the danger there is to
fall prey to melodrama. It's not easy. I'll nominate Glen as a good role
model, though. How can we make your persona more widely visible?
-- Russ