Tag: poly-perspectivism

Categories
01. Metaphysics

Metaphysics

The word “metaphysics” means different things to different people in different contexts. In fact, many learned papers have been written on the topic without reaching a conclusion. It appears to be one of those words whose meaning has changed over time, and whose historical meanings have persisted in some arenas. So, I have attempted to identify the common factor that unites all of those meanings. For the purposes of this article, therefore, I will define metaphysics as “pure theory that cannot be observed in the known physical world”. A metaphysical belief defined in this way can neither be proven nor disproven. Yet, such beliefs pervade our cultures. Why?

The main reason comprises a combination of two features of human nature. Firstly, we have a natural drive to understand the world in which we live. This better enables us to grasp the opportunities and avoid the threats that it presents to us. For the most part, we gain this understanding by observing events, or by learning from others who have observed them. However, there comes a point at which our ability to observe fails. What we would like to see becomes too small, too large, or too remote. So, we have no option but to speculate, at which point the explanation becomes a metaphysical one. Secondly, although we seek an explanation for states of affairs, the simpler it is, the better we can grasp it.

Metaphysical explanations are presented to us in two ways. At best it is in the form of simple speculation. That is, we hypothesise what may be the cause of a state of affairs beyond what we are able to observe in the empirical world. In physics, string theory may be an example. Logic and consistency with what we can observe may take us some way into the unobservable. However, the further we speculate beyond what can be confirmed by physical observation, the more likely we are to be wrong.

At worst, metaphysics can be deliberately false. For example, dark personalities can use metaphysical explanations to gain followers, thereby increasing their power base. This is almost certainly the case with some religious leaders.

As our technical and scientific skills have grown over time, we have been able to observe ever more of the physical world. Thus, what may previously have been metaphysical beliefs were replaced by ones founded on observation. It is notable, for example, that as our abilities to observe the physical world have increased, the domain of our gods has become ever more remote: from spirits within the rocks and trees around us, to mountain-tops, to the heavens, and finally, to the physical universe itself or beyond. However, past metaphysical beliefs can become entrenched in culture. Worse yet, they can become entrenched in the scientific paradigm. Thus, they can persist even after our knowledge of the physical world has expanded to cover what might previously have been an area of speculation.

This represents a problem for poly-perspectivism, i.e., the unification of diverse beliefs or perspectives into a single consistent whole. A consistent model comprising several perspectives is not possible when some of them contain falsehoods. Metaphysical beliefs inevitably include many falsehoods, are often inconsistent with one another, and so, defy unification. Any attempts at poly-perspectivism must, therefore, exclude the metaphysical.

One way of identifying whether a belief is metaphysical is to ask ourselves where it originated. Is it something that we have observed in practice, or is it something that other members of our society have caused us to believe? Many of our beliefs were first gained when we were socialised as young children and remain with us throughout our lives. This is why metaphysical beliefs persist. Other metaphysical beliefs are gained during our lives from role models and other people that we respect or look up to. But are these beliefs correct and is there observable evidence for them? Often not. Unfortunately, not all beliefs are equally valid. It can be challenging to question them in this way but, if we value truth, then it is something we must learn to do.

References

Korn, J., 2023. “Existence as a web of problem solving systems”, Kybernetes, doi.org/10.1108/K-05-2023-0751.

Categories
14. How to Think Creatively and Discover the Truth

How to Think Creatively and Discover the Truth

The following skills are necessary for creative thinking and discovery of the truth:

  1. poly-perspectivism;
  2. polymathy;
  3. understanding how the brain generates potential solutions to problems;
  4. recognition that observation is the best source of information;
  5. communication;
  6. recognition that authority has no monopoly on the truth;
  7. recognition that models and other simulations of reality are always flawed; and
  8. detective skills.

Poly-perspectivism was described in the previous article “Perspectivism and Poly-perspectivism”. In summary, no-one has the mental capacity to fully understand all aspects of a problem. Each of us is only capable of a partial understanding. This concept is known as perspectivism. It is possible, however, to expand and improve our understanding by interacting with others who have a different perspective. This does not, of course, necessarily mean accepting their perspective. Rather, it can reveal aspects of a problem that we had not previously thought of.

Polymathy. A polymath is someone whose knowledge spans a wide range of subjects. This enables them to see similarities between concepts in different fields of knowledge, even though they may be expressed in different language. This in turn, enables them to transfer innovations and discoveries from one field to another. Furthermore, it enables them to identify inconsistencies between theories in different fields. This article in The Conversation describes research by Robert and Michele Root-Bernstein of the University of Michigan. They have found that Nobel Prize winners are unusually likely to be creative polymaths. The article also gives examples of two such prizewinners.

When we work in specialist silos, we can construct theories that contradict those in other silos. Unfortunately, those contradictions can go unnoticed.  So, a good method for discovering the truth is to aim for breadth of knowledge rather than depth. Try to understand the fundamental principles of several disciplines. These principles can then be combined to create theories. If the theories are inconsistent with one another or what we observe to be true, then some of the fundamental principles must be incorrect.

Understanding how the brain generates potential solutions to problems. This was described in a previous article entitled “The Creative Process and Decision Making”. In summary, we can follow a four-stage process that harnesses the ability of the unconscious mind to solve problems. Stage 1, known as saturation, comprises learning as much as we can about the relevant issue. Stage 2, known as incubation, involves resting the conscious mind and allowing the unconscious to process that information. This may involve taking a short break from our desk or PC, or it may involve one or more nights of good sleep. Stage 3, known as inspiration, occurs when the unconscious mind, without prompting, presents its potential solutions to our consciousness. It is the “aha!” or “Eureka!” moment. Finally, stage 4, known as verification, comprises consciously checking that the inspiration is correct. Unfortunately, the unconscious mind does not always get it right. So, some additional research and incubation may be necessary. Once we understand this process, we can consciously employ it to great advantage in our day-to-day efforts. It is why it is often wise not to make decisions precipitously, but rather to “sleep on them”, or think about them for a while.

Recognition that observation is the best source of information. Human senses have evolved to better enable us to survive and procreate. So, one would expect the information gained through them to be a reasonable representation of reality. On the other hand, information gained from others is not necessarily true. We can also construct theories that contradict observed reality. There are a multitude of reasons why theories may be wholly or partially false: simple error, assumptions learned from society, a wish to gain status and attention, a wish to deliberately mislead, and so on. Building theories upon theories without verifying them by observation can lead not only to the propagation of errors and falsehoods, but also to the amplification of them. It is for this reason that scientists carry out practical experiments to verify their theories, and the same should apply in our daily lives.

Communication. It is better to express complex ideas in simple language, rather than simple ideas in complex language. The former increases the likelihood that the idea will be understood. The latter is often mere pretentiousness, with the aim of gaining unwarranted status. Unfortunately, the latter can also hide simple concepts behind a cloak of mystique. Consider, for example, the words of one eminent professor commenting on the work of an eminent sociologist:

“Under the regime of self-referential systems, “self-regulation” changes sense from automatic control to autonomous self-constitution, and the polarity between open and closed systems is sublated by supplementary relation binding openness to the environment to the closure of system operations.”

These words can be translated into plain English, as follows:

“A self-referential system contains and uses a description of itself. It is, therefore, self-aware. The theory of self-referential systems states that they control their own processes, rather than working automatically. They also recognise a difference between relationships within themselves and relationships with their environment.”

I am sure that all self-aware human beings regard this statement as obvious once it is stripped of its jargon.

    Recognition that authority has no monopoly on the truth. In life, we encounter individuals who have high social status because of their work in a particular field. We have a natural tendency to accept their theories as being true. This is known as “appeal to authority”. It is a logical fallacy which suggests that high status individuals have a monopoly on the truth. However, status can be carefully cultivated as a goal. Furthermore, a strong bond can develop between an individual’s status and the theory put forward by them. So, the theory becomes resistant to change, even in the face of contradictory evidence. Those who benefit by supporting the high-status individual are similarly bound to their theories. So, we should not automatically accept theories simply because they are propounded by someone of high status.

    Recognition that models and other simulations of reality are always flawed. Because human cognition has evolved, it can be expected to be a reasonable representation of reality. However, its limitations mean that it must also be a simplification. We formalise our understanding using various models, for example, language, mathematics, diagrams, computer simulations, etc. Inevitably these models are also simplifications.

    Models can be used, to a limited degree, to predict events. However, the prevailing view is that increasing their complexity by, for example, increasing the number of variables, does not necessarily increase the accuracy of their prediction. It is more effective to identify the most significant variables and keep the model relatively simple.

    Detective Skills. To convict a criminal, the prosecution must convince the jury that the defendant had the motive, means, and opportunity to commit the crime. The motive is the reason to commit the crime, the means is the ability and necessary tools to do so, and the opportunity is the time and circumstances that make the crime possible. If any of the three are absent, then the defendant is not guilty.

    The same is true of any act, criminal or otherwise, and so, theories about social causes and effects can be tested in the same way. For example, does a government have the motive, means, and opportunity to enact environmental legislation? It certainly has the means, and if the legislative programme permits, it has the opportunity. It is, therefore, the motive that is questionable and where attention needs to be focused.

    Categories
    13. Perspectivism and Poly-perspectivism

    Perspectivism and Poly-perspectivism

    No-one has the mental capacity to fully understand the world. Each of us is only capable of a partial understanding. This concept is known as perspectivism. It is possible, however, to expand and improve our worldview through interaction with those of others. This is known as poly-perspectivism. To give an analogy, when we look at a statue, we see only one side or perspective. Two people at diametrically opposite positions see entirely different perspectives. However, each is a part of the truth. Walking around the statue enables us to see all perspectives and, thus, the whole truth. Individually, we lack the mental capacity to do this for the whole of reality, of course, but it can be done for relatively limited topics.

    Poly-perspectivism means understanding other perspectives. It does not mean abandoning our own, but rather building on it and correcting it where necessary. Unfortunately, each worldview is partially true and partially false. The proportion varies from individual to individual, and from worldview to worldview. Thus, other perspectives will almost certainly include beliefs which are objectively false. Furthermore, beliefs can deliberately be falsified in the interest of their proponents. This means that the techniques for identifying truth, described in my previous article, must be used when considering other perspectives.

    Advice on how to engage with other perspectives is given in Paul Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement here and, diagrammatically, here. As a rule, the lower a person’s behaviour is on Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement, the more defensive they are of their worldview.

    One major advantage of poly-perspectivism is associated with “holism”. This term was coined by the South African statesman, Jan Smuts, in 1926, and means that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Holism is another way of describing emergent properties, i.e., properties which are not held by the individual parts of a system, but only by the system acting together as a whole. Our personal perspective may enable us to see part of what emerges from the whole, but it is unlikely that we will see all of it, or understand how and why it emerges. However, the more we adopt truths from other perspectives, the more we can:

    1. see the relevant topic as a whole;
    2. see errors in our own perspective of it;
    3. see fully what emerges from it; and
    4. understand how and why those things emerge.