frorum for week of 31 October: error, ignorance, use

Suppose you had the choice between
- being a brilliant but very abstract scientist, who would discover many true but utterly useless facts about the universe
- being a very effective technologist, who would come up with many roughly and approximately correct discoveries that would lead to inventions that made life easier and more fun
- being a spiritual leader, who would say many things that others had no reason to believe or disbelieve, but which would give them calm and a sense of purpose

Which would you choose?  Or "it all depends": depends on what?

Oh this is a question that simply has my name on it.

I would seek to minimize both error and ignorance with absolutely no concern for maximizing use. I would strive to be the abstract spiritual scientific leader.

We can think of error and ignorance-avoidance as being two ends of the epistemology spectrum. Rather than see the two ends as opposing sides that simple cannot co-exist I think it better to see them as opposing sides that compliment each other. The immediate analogy that comes to mind to me is science and art: These can be seen as opposite opposing ends of spectrum as well, however both are quintessential for human civilization, knowledge, and on just being human. Striving to maximize both art and science separately doesn't create a problem at all, in fact it creates progress. We don't try to find some common ground for the two within a common framework. That would be folly and cause all sorts of chaos. Disciplines for instance where science and art merge often have more examples of bad sloppy science and bland empty artistic discourse (Psychology is an example of this, I believe: http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/index.html).

Similarly, for epistemology, you want to extend your boundaries in all possible directions of the spectrum, being as good of a coherentist(ignorance-avoidance - the spiritual leader/art) and a foundationalist(error-avoidance - the abstract scientist/science) as possible. This means we're not tied to a single method, nor are we reducing the quality of the content of our knowledge by trying to stick to the middle where there's both a moderate amount of error and a moderate amount of ignorance. Extend both ways as far as possible to make progress.

As for times when the two clash: I'd constantly argue and compete with my other self to make the abstract scientist a better scientist and the spiritual leader a better leader. Competition should force further excellence in either side, with revised models meaning a closer approximation of knowledge. Yes, sometimes one side will win unanimously, and other times the other side will, but at least in this way it's clearer which side has holes in which arguments; likewise, you take only the best of both sides.

As for the technologist: I'm a thinker, not a doer. That's just me.

However, if the question had meant that I could only choose one: I'd choose the technologist solely because I cannot choose between the other two.

-Cornelis Dirk Haupt

Would have to choose the technologist. While theoretical knowledge is fascinating (or maybe just to me), from a utilitarian standpoint, I'd rather devote my energies to something of value for more than just mental stimulation.

I am going to take a bit of a utilitarian approach to answering this. You need to weigh out the implications. The intuitive first step is to ask of which option makes the individual directly involved the happiest. This is what appears to be asking each student who is replying to this topic.

So to move away from what is already being asked of us, what should also perhaps be considered is, what is it that the world already has and what does the world need. If the world already has lots of useful "stuff", but no truths - then I would suggest that perhaps we should seek out some fundamental facts.

We should weigh this with how high of a value the individual holds each option for them - for example, if person A would have a very high utility and happiness level from being a technologist while the planet is already at an average level for each other choice, then perhaps person A should be a technologist. Alternatively, if person A would only get a medium-average level of happiness from being a technologist but it would greatly benefit the planet in one way or another, then that should provide some direction.

Additionally, I think it may be useful to consider the implications of the nature of what it is exactly we are doing in each of the three forms. By that I mean the nature (good vs. bad) of what we are doing. If as a technologist you are creating nuclear weapons that will cause great misery and destruction to human-kind, that decreases utility and should be avoided. If the spiritual leader is someone who is of the likes of Charles Manson and has a devastating effect, again my suggestion is avoidance. The converse is also true.

Interestingly,when trying to evaluate "useless" truths by the scientist under the final consideration that I have outlined just above - the nature of truths, is that they are not inherently evil or good, they do not produce widespread devastation or joy by nature. Truths and facts, useless as they are all depend on how they are subjectively interpreted by humans. One could argue that they can be valued in and for themselves. To illustrate what I mean, Einstein developed a theory that was useless until it was interpreted by humans and lead to the invention of the atomic bomb. It is not that the theory was inherently good or evil, people created something from it. In contrast, an understanding of something such as Germ Cell Theory would prove to be ultimately useless until human interpretation steps in to apply it to understanding Cancer, in which we are now able to use such as theory to try to develop a cure. Again, such truths and facts depend on interpretation and do not inherently promote widespread good or evil. For this reason, I would choose to be the abstract scientist.

I will go with the technologist choice. By being an abstract scientist, the word useless in the statement implies pointless to me. However, it may not really be useless, it helps us to have a better understanding towards the universe and I find these understandings are rather interesting. However being a person like that takes a lot of effort, and the facts are really abstract. Being a spiritual leader, whos says things that people have no reason to believe or disbelive is also pointless to me. I think that many of us will not believe things without any reason behind it. Rather, even the evidence for a certain belief is not justified, we can still believe things based on false reasoning rather than no reason at all. Therefore I think being such a leader will not result in many followers, even if the belief give people a sense purpose and calm. I remember Clifford states that before one believes anything, without realizing the consequeses of the belief, one will ask whether the belief is true at first. In this way, this option is ruled out. The technologist, on the other hand, really helps people to make them have a better life. Mind experiment does amuse people, but we need more fundamental materials before we have this leisure, and there materials are produced by the technologist. In this sense, I think the technologist is not only more reasonable, but also more fundamental than the other two options.

I would pick the technologist, having the ability to invent things that make life easier is the most appealing choice. Also of the three it seems the most useful. While being a genius level scientist would seem to be helpful for society if the discoveries are pointless it seems that they would then not be helpful for society or anyone. Also the spiritual leader could very well be a scam artest or something of that nature and while he/she could be helpful for society might be filling people with flase hope.

If exposure to true evidence does not automatically produce true beliefs, what does it take to produce true beliefs.

I'm not going to answer the question Prof. Morton originally posted, but I wanted to write about something related to what we talked about today in class.

Prof. Morton, near the end of class, talked about how our explanatory concepts change our definitions in the way we order and classify knowledge (eg. the Pluto example and our classifications of animals and diseases). This reminded me of an interesting project being worked on by Vancouver-born philosopher Ian Hacking called Kind Making.

For Hacking, there are two types of kinds: Indifferent and Different kinds.

An indifferent kind is something that is indifferent to how humans name and categorize it in their field of knowledge, ie. how we order and relate different beliefs we hold to be knowledge (I'm coming at this from a coherence perspective). So, an example of this would be electrons, camels, ostriches, etc.

Then there are different kinds: a thing that reacts to how it is named and placed in our field of knowledge. The prime example here would be humans. Hacking specifically deals with different human kinds in relation to mental diseases. For example, the Diagnostic Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) organizes our different definitions of mental disorders and diseases. One particular disorder he takes issue with is Paraphillic Coercive Disorder (link: http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=416). The disorder is defined as someone who derives recurrent and intense pleasure from coercing people into sexual acts. His issue is how such strange definitions come about. Many people might not consider someone who enjoys coercing people into sex an actual mental disorder, as if there is a chemical imbalance in their brains. So, how do these definitions created?

His explanation is as follow: If we label someone with sexual sadism when they are not actually a sexual sadist then they will begin to exhibit the qualities of a sexual sadist, but probably not 1 to 1 with the official definition. If someone deviates far enough from the definition, then researchers might say "Gosh! Look at the person who is diagnosed with sexual sadism, but doesn't exhibit the exact qualities. They must some undiscovered disorder!" So, they create a new disorder that defines what qualities this person exhibits, even if they have no chemical imbalances at all! So, perhaps they create something like Paraphillic Coercive Disorder. The issue is are we not actually discovering knowledge, but creating a new field of knowledge that is specifically not discovered, but made by people.

This raises many epistemological, political, social and ethical issues, which I won't go further about here.

Hope people found this interesting.

Actually none of those seem particularly appealing. Part of the problem is maybe the way "being" is used here: as if a person had to devote their life entirely to this or that with no competing interests...

If I were forced to choose though, I suppose I'd go with being the technologist. Although the description gives the profession a sort of (in my view) superficial aim: making life "easier and more fun," it seems the best choice to combine the two desirables--knowledge and utility.