more problems with reason

A profound and relevant insight was shown in a Charles Schulz "Peanuts" cartoon strip one day.
Snoopy, the beagle, is lying on top of his doghouse and pondering. He says...

"Did you ever notice,
that if you think about something at 2 AM,
and then again at noon the next day,
you get two different answers?"

Snoopy manages to capture one of the problems with reason, as practiced today - namely, both the meaning of "facts" and the outcome of logical reasoning are context sensitive.

"Reasoning" alone is not sufficient. One has to track not only the math of how the contents relate to each other but also how the contexts relate to each other.

Probably this would require a new kind of computer which was a context processor, not a contents processor.

This is a very familiar problem in Einstein's General Relativity, and it is not insurmountable.

It is also a familiar problem to any mediator or serious negotiator, who knows that the meaning of a phrase or word or step is highly dependent on context.

In Relativity, it is clear that perceptions are a very specific combination of something which might be observed, and some type of distortion of the observer's measuring equipment. This means that the meaning of an observation is relative to the reference frame in which it is being observed.

This effect is terribly misunderstood by people, and misquoted as "Everything is relative" and "no view is right" and "There is no underlying reality." All those are wrong. What Einstein said is that, you need to make corrections to observations that depend on the type of distortion of the observer's world, and, after you do that, any two observers should agree on what they see.

So, there is very powerful mathematical formalism, originally involving "tensors", that allow these effects to be described relatively easily -- compared to the alternative of having to write down 256 components of the curvature tensor every time you said something about it.

This is good news, because people have a very similar problem. What we "observe" is in no way what is actually "out there" -- it is a similar conflation of our current set of biases, prejudices, mental blind spots, stereotypes, and what is "actually there". As in General Relativity, we cannot see our own blind spots, and are unable to detect where our biases have taken over and warped our judgment which, to us, looks just fine.

This, of course, is why "double blind" experiments are good if you can get them, so that the unconscious biases of the experimenter, regardless how hard he or she tries to be careful, do not alter the final conclusions.

Humans are excellent at mentally "papering over" their blind spots with what they think should go there, and not being able to detect that they have done this.

Anyway, "reasoning" alone is not sufficient. One has to track not only the math of how the contents relate to each other but also how the contexts relate to each other.

You could, I suppose, say that,well, yes, this is just reasoning. No, it is not "reasoning" as currently understood and practiced. The current interpretation of reasoning is that space is flat, there is no curvature, scientists are capable of being unbiased, and if A+B=C over here to this scientists, then it will still equal C over there or to a different scientists, without correction for where it was observed.

In fact, a basic assumption of physics is that it doesn't matter where you are, or what time you start, or what direction you are pointed, you should still measure exactly the same physical laws. I'd add, they also assume that you get the same reading regardless how large a ruler you use.

In reality, it seems that there is context dependence, and life is fractal or at least non-uniform, and what is measured at large scales may be exactly the opposite of what is measured at small scales, for the "same" physical event. (See post on "hybrid images" for examples, such as "Marilyn Einstein" or the "happy/angry faces" that look different, depending on how far you stand back from the picture.)

So, at a minimum, it would help if people understand how much of what we think we see is actually a function of our viewpoint, our biases, our mental models, our context, what we had for breakfast, what our spouse had for breakfast, etc.

Responsible observers making careful observations in different contexts will get different answers.

Responsible logical thinkers, starting with the same facts, in two different contexts, will assemble them into different, and possibly contradictory conclusions, regardless how carefully they work.

This is a crucial fact to sort out, and even it is not dealt with well by science, let alone by laymen. All of these effects can be demonstrated, and can be counteracted, but seldom are.

All of these effects can be adjusted for, to remove them from the final conclusion, by different people, but again, this kind of meta-reasoning, or reasoning about the impact of deterministic context in which reason is applied, is not currently the usual practice on Earth in 2008.

Even it is blocked by those who refuse to consider the possibility that there is something that can be improved about the process they use to reach conclusions and to consult with ech other.


Wade