Tag: language of science

Categories
- Consultation - Governance - Oppression - Religion - Science Discourse Knowledge Oneness

Climate Change and Political Partisanship: Why is the Truth So Divisive?

Every intelligent mind that evaluates the causes for global warming concludes that human-induced green-house gas emissions are responsible for Earth’s atmospheric average temperature increases. The only people who disagree with this are fringe scientists and few in number. For mysterious reasons, politicians are highly polarized on this debate. This scientific question has therefore become politicized. Since the early 1990’s the debate has typically fallen along partisan lines. The question needs to be asked: ‘Should we raise awareness of the facts surrounding climate change and risk igniting partisan warfare?’

To investigate the scientific validity of an issue, to raise awareness and form thoughtful opinions, and to act on these views as citizens with our purchasing-power and electoral choices — all this seems a human duty and a moral responsibility. However, what if we also hope to avoid becoming embroiled in partisan conflict, and consider exacerbating its divisive character, by throwing fuel onto a fire, equally unacceptable? An alternative is to refrain from speaking altogether. This however, would imply remaining silent on matters of conscience.

To many it would be unconscionable to hold their peace on matters of importance to one’s community, the environment, and the world. As responsible citizens of one common homeland, if we know something we would wish to share it, especially if  it is of betterment to the world. Who wouldn’t want others to benefit from it, to stimulate large numbers to investigate it, to improve collective conditions and avert disaster?

Pursuit of truth is natural. The desire to teach it is equally natural. The facts compel our conscience to declare that human fossil fuels and deforestation are responsible for climate change and truly threaten life on earth as we know it. How can public information and unbiased investigation into the topic be promoted, while not attracting the label of partisan bickering? How can one be true to one’s conscience but at the same time avoid being drawn into conflict with partisan representatives and economic special interests?

Partisan demonizing carries with it a debilitating affect on intelligent discourse. Climate change is after all, an issue of global importance and collective human destiny. Is it possible to contribute wisely whilst remaining free of quarrel in a social environment charged with partisan bickering and economic second agendas?

Holding discourse hostage with the threat of demonizing and castigating alternative viewpoints undermines the truth-discovering power of consultation, cooperation, and collective action.

Dear Sandy: Will humankind put aside partisanship before the Earth overheats our species?

.

Categories
- Language - Science

Objective Spiritual Reality

Considering how difficult it is to judge objective statements about social reality, it is even more challenging with spiritual reality.  However, spiritual reality exists, human language can attempt to describe it, and therefore, it is possible to make objective statements regarding spiritual reality.  Throughout this blog there have been numerous such claims.  One simple one is that “justice is a faculty of the human soul that enables one to see with one’s own eyes”.  The nature of this statement is objective – it describes an ability of a human being to discern truth through an investigative process free from prejudice, an ability that is inherently latent and needs to be developed.  This type of claim, along with its implications, can be observed, studied, and analyzed.

Yet, not all statements about spiritual nature are objective – many, such as personal feelings when reading spiritual writings, meditating, spiritual experiences, etc, fall into the category of subjective yet valid statements.  However, the existence of this category of observations about spiritual reality does not negate the ability to make objective statements.  Thus, someone can describe a subjective spiritual response to a prayer, and also put forth a thoughtful objective claim regarding a human being’s relationship with prayer.  One has to distinguish between subjective experiences and objective claims, for – just like with social reality – many try and pass off vain imaginings as objective.

That some people disagree with some statement on spiritual reality also does not negate the objectivity of that statement.  As a parallel example, regarding the objective statements made about the interaction of light with an object giving rise to its property of color, most words used only have meaning to those intellectually trained in physics – for others, the statement is meaningless.  With spiritual reality, then, objective statements would be less meaningful to those whose spiritual susceptibilities haven’t been developed – they wouldn’t understand nor accept such statements.

To practice justice implies that one knows through one’s own knowledge, not through the biases of society’s classroom, pulpit, or media.  Just like with the science of physical reality, objectivity is not altered by subjective experiences nor by the disagreement of people.

What are some objective observations regarding spiritual reality?  How can you test them?

.

Categories
- Language - Science

Claims About Social Reality

The physical and material aspects of our complex reality are not the only ones with objectivity – the human mind is able to make objective statements about all of reality, including social and spiritual reality.  As an example related to social reality, one can claim that “one of the causes of violence in certain countries is pervasive social injustice”.  This statement contains a relationship between two observable phenomena, namely violence – demonstrated by crimes like robbery, murder, assault, and by increased need for police, security, and gated homes – and social injustice – shown by analyzing conditions of certain segments of the population, and interactions of certain groups of people with social institutions.  One can then observe societies to see if there is a positive correlation between the two.  Of course, correlation is not causation, but the statement claims that injustice is “one” of the causes, and therefore has some degree of objectivity to it.

One point to note is that objectivity is not synonymous with truth.  Furthermore, subjective statements can easily be presented as objective.  For instance, consider a hypothetical situation of a doctor who hires poor employees and pays them low wages, who sees poor people as patients and charges them high prices for unnecessary medical testing, and works in a system that blocks their progress.  This person would not make the subjective statement “I like to profit off poor people”.  Instead, this person would make the objective claim “poor people are lazy and uneducated and therefore stay poor”.  Because objectivity can be tested, it should be straightforward.  However, an observer can be biased by his or her own subjective judgements.  For instance, he might see that his family members worked hard and then became wealthy, or that a lazy person lost his job and became poor, or even notice a poor person who was also lazy.  From these limited, yet objective, observations, the observer would accept the claim that the poor are lazy.

However, a more thorough analysis will reveal this statement false.  Hard work is not the only factor in the generation of wealth – it also includes starting capital, access to credit, technical knowledge, fair wages, and a somewhat just social structure.  All of these factors need be to examined and controlled for if one is to scientifically and objectively link work to wealth; and even observations need to be made about the resulting amount of work done when opportunities are given to the poor.  It becomes clear that subjective prejudgements about social reality, often false, can be disguised as objective.

Can you think of other statements that pass as objective, yet in reality are subjective?

.

Categories
- Language - Science

Objectivity and Reality

Notwithstanding that all social conventions, including language, are built from shared understanding that are to some extent ontologically subjective, they are not completely arbitrary. Language – as well as social reality – is built upon objective reality itself. Words and conventions have become abstract representations and codifications, respectively, of the complex dynamics of human beings within reality. There are a number of realities that interact together to form social reality. Both physical reality and its forces along with spiritual reality and its forces influence human thought – which is the reality of a human being. These three realities come together to shape social reality, which itself also influences human thought. Language both builds and is built upon this reciprocal interplay between human thought and society – and ultimately, rests upon the objective spiritual and physical realities themselves.

Let us take our previous post’s somewhat objective statement a bit further. Instead of simply claiming the color of something to be “green”, the property of an object that determines it to be “green” can be explained:
The color of a thing arises from its interaction with light. In order for something to be visible, light – composed of packets of energy called photons or particles – hits an object, interacts with it, and emits photons back into our eyes. Visible white light from the sun (or a bulb) is actually a mixture of a range of frequencies by which its photons vibrate – each one corresponding to a color on a spectrum. Frequencies are measured by the photon’s wave cycles per second. When this white light interacts with something, some frequencies are absorbed and others are reflected. The frequency of the reflected photons determine what color this object appears to be in a beholder’s eye.

This explanation that accompanies the statement “that thing is green” is much more objective. It’s true, this paragraph – as with all of language – includes many names that are based on social convention. For instance, why is it named “light” or “frequency”? However, the naming included in this previous paragraph is not simply subjective social convention – there must be some agreement as to the underlying reality on which these names are based. One who agrees with this paragraph must have at least a basic level of understanding of physics to understand that “light” is made up of “energy packets” characterized by “frequency”. Furthermore, this paragraph goes beyond naming – it establishes relationships between concepts (X is composed of Y which is characterized by Z) and attempts to explain them a bit (Z is some unit of space per time). Regardless of the naming, these relationships and explanations are objective. To agree with this paragraph is not a matter of convention – it is based on reality itself.

.

Categories
- Language - Science

Language as Social Convention

In understanding the role of objectivity in language, two types of statements have been presented – personal preferences, which are entirely subjective; and social conventions, which are subjective in their creation or existence yet objective in their influence and knowledge.  Let’s move progressively towards a more objective statement.

Two examples of social conventions presented last post were traffic lights and money.  So, what about the statement “That traffic light is green” or “That dollar bill is green”.  This is certainly not a personal preference, nor subjective – all people looking at these objects can reach this valid conclusion.  Furthermore, this is not societally or culturally dependent; a green light or a green bill taken elsewhere will still hold the property of green color – it is apparently an inherent property of that bulb or that ink.

Is this, then, an entirely objective statement that informs us about reality?  Upon further analysis, this statement still is based on a social convention.  Language, as has been discussed earlier, is itself a social convention.  The main point of the statement about the traffic light or the dollar bill is its green color.  However, the term “green” is simply a name that, like all other names, was at one point or another agreed upon – the naming process of language, being a social convention, is also ontologically subjective and epistemologically objective.  Additionally, languages, both between and even within, contain myriad connotations, subtle meanings, and context-specific interpretations.  In order to understand the concepts, ideas, and underling reality being conveying through the vehicle of language, one needs to go beyond names…one needs to get to the objectivity that those names symbolize.

.

Categories
- Language - Science Development Discourse Human Nature

Social Conventions – Objective or Subjective?

Objectivity – another desired quality of the language of science – is a term loaded with connotations and interpretations; it’s rarely a straightforward concept.  It helps to contrast it with subjectivity.  An entirely subjective statement is one of personal preference, such as “daffodils are the prettiest kind of flower” – this might be a consensus among a large group of people, but is not in universal agreement.  Something that is in agreement with others is not necessarily objective, nor is it necessarily truth.

There are certain things, however, that are somewhat objective because of their agreement amongst individuals.  Social conventions are of this nature.  Money, for instance, is a great example.  A particular piece of paper is money not because of any physical qualities it possesses (it’s just a piece of paper with ink), but because social agents have agreed on it and created it.  In this sense, it is ontologically subjective – meaning, its existence is contingent on human consensus, and it has no meaningful existence otherwise.  However, at this point, determining whether a piece of paper is money isn’t a matter of personal preference; no one could say that a five-dollar bill isn’t five dollars.  It is epistemologically objective – meaning, our knowledge of this social convention, and its influence and effects, are based on ascertainable facts, independent of individual opinions. Because of it’s subjectivity, collective thought determines what society is; though because of it’s objectivity, collective thoughts are, in part, determined by society.  However, those of us who aim to contribute to the advancement of civilization will benefit from understanding the subjective aspect of society.

Social reality, including rules, conventions, codes, is built on shared understandings – it is an expression of human agreement.  A red light means “stop”, and a green light means “go”; but there is absolutely no reason that it couldn’t have been the opposite.  Yet, social reality shapes human relationships and interactions, forms human thought and understanding, and directs action and conduct.  There is a profound reciprocal relationship between human thought and social reality – each affects the other, and a change is either necessitates a simultaneous change in both.

What are the implications that social reality is ontologically subjective?

What are the implications that social reality is epistemologically objective?

If a large enough amount of people believe something to be true, does it become social convention?

What about the inertia built into the social structures that exist?

 

.

Categories
- Language - Science Justice

Consistency

The statements of a language that seeks to be rational must also be internally consistent. Obviously, premises and claims cannot contradict each other, otherwise, truth could never be sought, and reality could never be adequately assessed. The importance of consistency is that it is a direct requisite for justice – if justice is the faculty of the soul that enables the mind to differentiate truth from falsehood and understand through one’s own knowledge, then one must strive for consistency in one’s perception and analysis, and the actual reality. This path to coherence requires constant reflection. And as words, thoughts, and actions all influence each other, consistency in words becomes even more important – for consistency within and between thoughts and actions is also praiseworthy. One cannot believe one thing and do the opposite. Consistency expresses itself as a commitment to long-term action informed by vision; as thinking in terms of process; as a learning mode characterized by action, reflection, and consultation; as being uncompromising in principle, never sacrificing values for practicality; as maintaining resolve in purpose; and as aligning methods and approaches with goals and ends, and with humanity’s innate nobility.

Consider the following reasoning:

– A humble posture of learning is essential in order to contribute to the advancement of civilization.
– The western systems are the most advanced in the world.
– The advancement of civilization is conditioned on establishing western systems.

Are these statements consistent? What are the assumptions underlying them? What is the relationship between them? How was this conclusion reached?

What are some other examples of inconsistency you see in society? Do they correlate with injustice? Do you see examples of consistency and justice?

.

Categories
- Language - Science

Rationality

In addition to clarity, another important characteristic of the language of science is rationality.  Again, as language informs thought, using rational language helps create reasonable thought.  And because words and thoughts influence actions, a language that seeks rationality will translate into action that strives to be strategic, efficient, sustained, and with long-term vision.  What is rationality?  What is logic?  What is the process of reasoning?  A quick wikipedia or google search demonstrates the difficulty of this subject.  Instead of going through philosophy 101, a few basic principles can be explored with the aim of applying them into language, thought, and action.

Rational thought and statements result from a process of reasoning.  One type is deduction – reaching a conclusion that follows from premises.   “All iphones have a camera” + “Your cell phone is an iphone” = “Your cell phone has a camera.”  Theoretically, this type of reasoning is comforting – if the premises are true, clear, absolute, and relevant, then the conclusion is correct.  However, this type of logic is highly limited; rarely do we have these types of premises regarding social reality.  Instead, the premises could be false, ambiguous, or conditional. “Some iphones have a camera” would lead to “your cell phone might have a camera – not sure”, which is unclear.  “Your sandwich is an iphone” would lead to “your sandwich has a camera” which is just not true.  (And please comment below if it is).

Another process is that of induction – to create generalizations from observations.  “The iphones I’ve seen have cameras” and thus “All iphones have cameras”.  In order to have correct and clear inductions, the number of observations made must be large and in diverse conditions.  The more observations one makes that fit one’s generalization, the more confident one is of the truth of that statement.

The above examples are but two of many processes of logic.  They are very simple, and just go to show the basics of rationality in language and thought.  In everyday life, however, there is much more than rational thought that is needed.  Regarding the simple process of deduction, where do the premises come from?  What assumptions underlie them?  Consider, for instance, the following:

– Poor people steal more than rich people.
– Joe is poor, and John is rich.
– I should trust John over Joe with my car keys.

The logic is sound, but where did the first premise, in particular, come from?  What assumptions underlie it?  How is logical reasoning being deceptively used in our society to manipulate and distort views of reality?

Similarly, with inductive logic, what assumptions lead to the lens through which observations are made?  And what assumptions form the framework through which observations are interpreted?  If one wanted to use induction to determine whether collaboration or competition leads to more productivity, one would set about observing instances of competition, instances of collaboration, instances of productivity.  What factors determine the conditions of these instances?  What constitutes productivity?  What are the mindsets of those competing and collaborating?  Obviously, rationally is important – but it is not without a conceptual foundational built on assumptions about human and societal nature.

 

.

Categories
- Language - Science

Clarity

Human beings understand reality through conceptualization.  For material and concrete objects, language naturally defines them easily.  As concepts become more abstract – such as regarding the social and spiritual reality – this becomes more and more difficult.  The language of science, however, is well equipped to meet this challenge, for it progressively moves towards precision and clarity when describing concepts.  As its methods to achieve clarity, science uses repetition of language with slight alterations each time, identification of subtleties and implications in word choices, realization of possible logical contradictions at a later time, and a vision to take creative and calculated leaps forward.  Gradually, using these processes, the language that science uses in understanding a concept becomes unambiguous and takes on unique meaning.

The quest of scientific language to be precise is not a mechanical, cold, and sterile set of operations; nor is it mutually exclusive with certain spiritual faculties that have always aided in scientific discovery.  The role of imagination, intuition, and attraction to beauty have always characterized the scientific enterprise.  After all, the role of science – just like the role of religion – is to unravel the mysteries of reality and witness the marvelous beauty inherent in the order of the universe.

Inseparable from clarity of language is clarity of thought.  Many of the requisite characteristics of successful consultation are also needed for clear thinking. These include eliminating false dichotomies, tolerating temporary ambiguity, being detached and dispassionate with one’s ideas, thinking in terms of process, being flexible and open-minded in considering views, relating the practical to the principle, adopting a wider vision, attention to details, and very importantly, the ability to understand and identify causality on a complex level.

What are your thoughts regarding the clarity of current speech?  In education?  In politics?  In medicine?  In music and entertainment?  In relationships?  In family?  In friendship?

 

.