The leap of faith into absolutes

Great Debates
1

The leap of faith into absolutes.

Karl Popper authored the book “The Open Society and Its Enemies”. The concept Popper illustrates in this book sounds much like the concept of a liberal democracy but his concept is more epistemological than political. It is based upon our imperfect comprehension of reality more than our structure of society.

Popper argues that all ideology shares a common characteristic; a belief in their infallibility. Such infallibility is an impossibility, which leads such ideological practitioners to use force to substantiate their views and such repression brings about a closed society.

Popper proposed that the open society is constructed on the recognition that our comprehension of reality is not perfect—there is realty beyond our comprehension and our will cannot compensate for that lack of comprehension. Even though the will of the power structure can manipulate the opinions of the citizens sooner or later reality will defeat the will. Truth does matter and success will not always override truth—truth being reality.

**American culture has lost respect for truth. We have been swamped with PR and spin and untruth to such an extent that we have lost confidence in truth and it has lost its value.

I think that many Americans display and embrace their symbols so extravagantly because we have devalued truth and have glorified infallibility. When we reach such a situation ideologies become more and more important and the adoration of symbols is our method of showing our evaluation of our ideology which is one of our gods.**

I think that for many Americans the natural sciences have come to represent that which is infallible. Rather than a solution science/technology has become the problem because it is ill used, especially when applying the scientific method when dealing with human problems.

I think that the more attached we are to what we consider to be absolute truth the more we idolize such things as science/technology and symbols such as flags, nations, and religion. Would you agree?

2

Yes, more or less.

3

“Karl Popper” is a silly name. Whenever I see him mentioned, I inevitably think of Mr. Popper’s Penguins, and I have a hard time taking him seriously.

4

Nope, I disagree. I hold idealogies that i’m quite prepared to say aren’t infallible, as much as i’d like them to be. And even if I did, infallibility isn’t necessarily an impossibility. Highly, highly unlikely, sure, but “impossibility” is far too strong a word to use.

I disagree again. Truth, certainly, is reality. But in some cases truth can be a lie. Were I to believe that the Sun is a giant pool ball, i’d be wrong. But the fact that I believe that would be a truth. And any behaviour I undertake as a result of that belief is also “true” in that I have done it.

Truth is insignificant; it is opinions and beliefs of truth that matter. Truth only changes the world when people’s views towards truth change, not because truth exists. It needs to be brought to people’s attention before it affects them. It is only as important as any equally-believable lie, sometimes less so, sometimes more so. But we certainly shouldn’t put it on a pedestal.
Didn’t want to go with the American stuff, since it’s pretty different here in terms of symbols.

Yes. But not just because we think we might have it; the search for it is important, too, and that comes into play with both science and religion.

5

The correct greeting would be Sir Karl Popper.

6

Rev…

You would dare contradict Sir Karl. What courage you display. Not all ideologues accept absolute truth but the vast majority do I suspect.

7

Isn’t saying that also contradicting him? :wink:

I’d actually say the opposite; I think that if you asked people whether they were absolutely, 100% certain that their idealogies were correct, most would say they were as sure as they could be… but that being wrong was a possibility, even if it was only a tiny possibility.

OTOH, I could be wrong. :smiley:

8

“There is no such thing as an absolute.” is an absolute…

I think the problem arises when one is in a position to govern. Governing is a hard, complex task and it is awfully tempting to say that if “they” would just folloy my methods things would go a lot better. And to be inclined to use force to implement your methods.

9

Do you have any evidence of this at all? The large number of people who believe in creationism seems to belie it. A common joke is how scientific findings change over time, and most people don’t seem to understand that something published is just a step on a journey close to the truth.

I rather suspect Popper’s point is that science, for which everything is tentative, is the exact opposite of ideology, and if we used scientific reasoning in evaluating ideologies, we’d be much better off. I agree.

I suspect the problem in the US is twofold. The first is religious and political opposition to the findings of science which disagree with an ideology, no matter how well supported. The second is rotten science education, much of which teaches facts rather than methods.

10

We live in two different worlds.

I recently had occasion to hang out in the waiting area of St Joseph Hospital in Asheville for a few hours. I was free to walk many of the corridors and rest in many of the waiting areas along with everyone else. It was early morning but it was obvious that the hospital functioned fully 24/7.

A person can walk the corridors of any big city hospital and observe the effectiveness of human rationality in action. One can also visit the UN building in NYC or read the morning papers and observe just how ineffective, frustrating and disappointing human rationality can be. Why does human reason perform so well in some matters and so poorly in others?

We live in two very different worlds; a world of technical and technological order and clarity, and a world of personal and social disorder and confusion. We are increasingly able to solve problems in one domain and increasingly endangered by our inability to solve problems in the other.

Normal science is successful primarily because it is a domain of knowledge controlled by paradigms. The paradigm defines the standards, principles and methods of the discipline. It is not apparent to the laity but science moves forward in small incremental steps. Science seldom seeks and almost never produces major novelties.

Science solves puzzles. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

Science uses instrumental rationality to solve puzzles. Instrumental rationality is a systematic process for reflecting upon the best action to take to reach an established end. The obvious question becomes ‘what mode of rationality is available for determining ends?’ Instrumental rationality appears to be of little use in determining such matters as “good” and “right”.

There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved only using deductive and inductive reasoning.

Dialectical reasoning methods require the ability to slip quickly between contradictory lines of reasoning. One needs skill to develop a synthesis of one point of view with another. Where technical matters are generally confined to only one well understood frame of reference real life problems become multi-dimensional totalities.

When we think dialectically we are guided by principles not by procedures. Real life problems span multiple categories and academic disciplines. We need point-counter-point argumentation; we need emancipatory reasoning to resolve dialectical problems. We need critical thinking skills and attitudes to resolve real life problems.

11

Mostly because the latter situations involve human wills in conflict. But there is no reason to suppose that fundamentally resistant to scientific analysis. Someday we might in fact have a true “science of society,” like the “psychohistory” of Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series. Of course, even such a science would be incompetent to make value judgments or decide ethical questions, which lie outside the scope of science by definition.

12

My father worked at the UN for 30 years starting in 1946, and I wonder where you get the idea that the UN has anything to do with rationality. Politics is about finding solutions to problems where the players have conflicting desires and requirements. Using math, you can find the optimal solution to many problems - but if you run the problem with different weights assigned to the factors, you will get a bunch of different best answers.

13

There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved only using deductive and inductive reasoning.

Dialectical reasoning methods require the ability to slip quickly between contradictory lines of reasoning. One needs skill to develop a synthesis of one point of view with another. Where technical matters are generally confined to only one well understood frame of reference real life problems become multi-dimensional totalities.

14

You haven’t been working on hard enough technical problems then. Technical problems often involve trading off between mutually contradictory requirements, and one of the qualities of a good engineer is being able to do this.

For instance, when designing a microprocessor you need to trade-off between speed, area, and power. Faster transistors are bigger, and require more power. You can at least measure where you are, but the difference between a successful product and a bad one is how quickly and effectively this is done.

Perhaps you had the impression I was saying that real-life problems can be optimally solved. That’s exactly what I wasn’t saying. The whole point is that the problem requires that people with contradictory desires compromise. Logic can be used in seeing what solution results, but not to make people compromise. Do you have any issue with the concept of contradictory requirements?

15

Voyager

Regarding your question. My grandson wishes to join the army and says that is the patriotic thing to do. I do not want him in the army but I admire this attitude.

16

Except that that answer provides no inkling that you concede (or even understood) Voyager’s point concerning technical problems. Which is important, as it (partially) underlies the OP.

17

:confused: I fail to see the relevance of this. It’s his life, and your opinion. A friend’s son is going to join the Marines, and our friend is heartsick with worry about it. But after a kid reaches his majority, it’s his choice. I see neither faith nor absolutes here.

BTW, this issue is yet another reason to not believe in God. God is the moral absolute. Yet the impact of morals on people depend on their personal values. Because of the problems I mentioned, there can be no one moral standard that covers all cases optimally. Thus, no moral absolute and no god.

Now, a God could impose standards by force without caring what is best for people, but that’s not the benevolent God of the West.

18

Framing the issue: Petraeous—Betray us

George Lakoff, linguist, cognitive scientist, author of “Philosophy in the Flesh” was the mind behind the ad. He has framed the issue that will focus upon dishonesty and untruth for the next 16 months. One cannot say Petraeous without thinking ‘betray us’.