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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 4:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _____ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- Orlando Leibovitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.orlandoleibovitz.com Studio Telephone: 505-820-6183
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
