Science and Society
I often hear people argue about their country. I have heard educated, intelligent people try to explain it on television, in books, in speeches. What bothers me is the almost total lack of reference points. The body of explanation is floating in air, without an anchor in reality. We have no starting point on which we agree.
If I ask anyone in Canada to define the basic principles by which our society is organized, I get different answers. Some say it is a democracy, some say it is capitalistic; most would agree that it is a nice place to live. (Canadians are proud to be ‘nice people’). If I ask about the problems we have, I really get an earful: too much taxation, too much government, too few public services, too soft on crime, too much corruption, too much poverty, etc., etc.
And when I ask, “too much, compared to what?” - no answer. How do we define what is normal, what is acceptable? According to what principle; by what yardstick? Nobody knows. We just don’t like some part of our social environment for personal reasons and we call it too ‘something’.
Take taxation. Everyone agrees that we pay too high a proportion of our income. What would be the right proportion? Why pay taxes at all? And if we do, what is the appropriate amount? Should it be the same for everyone or should it be progressive? If yes, how progressive? Why? What determines fairness? How do we calculate it? Everyone who ever filled out a tax return knows that tax laws are insanely complicated. Who made them, based on what principle, what criteria?
Almost nobody, at least not in public media, discusses these questions. We just express emotional and personal opinions and expect others to agree with our unstated assumptions. Sometimes even we ourselves do not know what assumptions.
Our opponents are no better off, so arguments seldom go anywhere. We keep shouting each other down, interrupting each other's statements -- nobody convinces anybody about anything; the argument is doomed from the start. Quite often the purpose is to score points. We treat the discussion as a contest, instead of an attempt to find a solution and thus let everybody win. This attitude, of course, is consistent with the aggressive genes in our species that want to fight, rather than cooperate, for survival.
If we tried to build science and industry by this method, we would still be in the caves. It just doesn't work. It can't. The scientific method, which was so successful over the centuries in technology, is not limited to science: it is a general problem-solving method that could and should be applied to all our problems.
We need a common starting point. If we go from there, step by step, making sure we agree on each step, then either we arrive at the same conclusion, or a point of disagreement. Work on that point, until we reach a compromise, and then resume our discussion, knowing that we are still together, solving our problem.
In the case of taxation, we would have to ask some basic questions first, before going into details or percentages:
What are the essence, goals and priorities of society?
What are the basically different options for organizing people?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of these options?
Which of the options do we chose?
What is the optimum way to implement this option?
If we answered these questions, the rest would be easy. Basic facts, simple logic, and some arithmetic would provide the answers.
The general public assumes that the scientific method is designed for, and restricted to, science. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Take the judicial system, for example. The body of laws ought to read like a scientific document. All the terms must be clearly defined, all the laws clearly stated, covering every probable scenario, every possible exception. No contradiction is allowed in the document and if one is demonstrated, it needs to be revised to remove the contradiction.
Of course, no law-book is perfect, just as no encyclopaedia of science is flawless. But the intent is there and with the right attitude, things can be improved all the time.
In criminal trials both the defender and the prosecutor have to use precise logic to draw their conclusions (even though each tries to cheat as much as he thinks he can get away with) and the evidence they present has to be “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
It is a sad state of affairs that our politicians can get away with undefined concepts, gross errors of facts, blatantly illogical arguments, glaring contradictions and transparent emotional manipulation. Just compare the public ‘debate’ that led to attacking Iraq in 2003, with the process I described above and ask yourself the following questions:
• Were all the terms used clearly defined
• Were all the relevant data considered?
• Were all the statements offered consistent with one another?
• Were all the presumed facts clearly demonstrated?
• Were the conclusions reached by meticulous logic?
• Have the need for, and goals of, action been clearly identified?
• Had every alternative action been considered?
• Were the leaders ready to admit error when contradiction was found?
• Was the course of action changed according to new evidence?
• Was there an attitude of honesty, integrity, openness, objectivity?
Somehow I think that it would help if the citizenry were better educated in science and logic. This is part of the reason I decided to write this book.
If I ask anyone in Canada to define the basic principles by which our society is organized, I get different answers. Some say it is a democracy, some say it is capitalistic; most would agree that it is a nice place to live. (Canadians are proud to be ‘nice people’). If I ask about the problems we have, I really get an earful: too much taxation, too much government, too few public services, too soft on crime, too much corruption, too much poverty, etc., etc.
And when I ask, “too much, compared to what?” - no answer. How do we define what is normal, what is acceptable? According to what principle; by what yardstick? Nobody knows. We just don’t like some part of our social environment for personal reasons and we call it too ‘something’.
Take taxation. Everyone agrees that we pay too high a proportion of our income. What would be the right proportion? Why pay taxes at all? And if we do, what is the appropriate amount? Should it be the same for everyone or should it be progressive? If yes, how progressive? Why? What determines fairness? How do we calculate it? Everyone who ever filled out a tax return knows that tax laws are insanely complicated. Who made them, based on what principle, what criteria?
Almost nobody, at least not in public media, discusses these questions. We just express emotional and personal opinions and expect others to agree with our unstated assumptions. Sometimes even we ourselves do not know what assumptions.
Our opponents are no better off, so arguments seldom go anywhere. We keep shouting each other down, interrupting each other's statements -- nobody convinces anybody about anything; the argument is doomed from the start. Quite often the purpose is to score points. We treat the discussion as a contest, instead of an attempt to find a solution and thus let everybody win. This attitude, of course, is consistent with the aggressive genes in our species that want to fight, rather than cooperate, for survival.
If we tried to build science and industry by this method, we would still be in the caves. It just doesn't work. It can't. The scientific method, which was so successful over the centuries in technology, is not limited to science: it is a general problem-solving method that could and should be applied to all our problems.
We need a common starting point. If we go from there, step by step, making sure we agree on each step, then either we arrive at the same conclusion, or a point of disagreement. Work on that point, until we reach a compromise, and then resume our discussion, knowing that we are still together, solving our problem.
In the case of taxation, we would have to ask some basic questions first, before going into details or percentages:
What are the essence, goals and priorities of society?
What are the basically different options for organizing people?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of these options?
Which of the options do we chose?
What is the optimum way to implement this option?
If we answered these questions, the rest would be easy. Basic facts, simple logic, and some arithmetic would provide the answers.
The general public assumes that the scientific method is designed for, and restricted to, science. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Take the judicial system, for example. The body of laws ought to read like a scientific document. All the terms must be clearly defined, all the laws clearly stated, covering every probable scenario, every possible exception. No contradiction is allowed in the document and if one is demonstrated, it needs to be revised to remove the contradiction.
Of course, no law-book is perfect, just as no encyclopaedia of science is flawless. But the intent is there and with the right attitude, things can be improved all the time.
In criminal trials both the defender and the prosecutor have to use precise logic to draw their conclusions (even though each tries to cheat as much as he thinks he can get away with) and the evidence they present has to be “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
It is a sad state of affairs that our politicians can get away with undefined concepts, gross errors of facts, blatantly illogical arguments, glaring contradictions and transparent emotional manipulation. Just compare the public ‘debate’ that led to attacking Iraq in 2003, with the process I described above and ask yourself the following questions:
• Were all the terms used clearly defined
• Were all the relevant data considered?
• Were all the statements offered consistent with one another?
• Were all the presumed facts clearly demonstrated?
• Were the conclusions reached by meticulous logic?
• Have the need for, and goals of, action been clearly identified?
• Had every alternative action been considered?
• Were the leaders ready to admit error when contradiction was found?
• Was the course of action changed according to new evidence?
• Was there an attitude of honesty, integrity, openness, objectivity?
Somehow I think that it would help if the citizenry were better educated in science and logic. This is part of the reason I decided to write this book.
No comments have been added yet.
