FOURTH WAY OF WISDOM -- B Arthur M. Jackson
Copyright 2001, 2003, 2006
.
The following quote provides an enlightening characterization of science and helps to show how overlooking the role of belief in human thinking has produced a significant flaw in established science. "Normal science has been described, in an influential book by Thomas Kuhn[7], as mostly a mopping-up exercise. Kuhn means that during most periods and in most fields there is an accepted theoretical framework of scientific thought -- a paradigm, as he calls it -- that commands general acceptance, and scientists normally work on small, still unexplained problems (known as 'puzzles') that explore and fill out and confirm the prevailing paradigm." [10]
Kuhn's ideas as discussed elsewhere provide a helpful guide in understanding the scientific effort and uncovering some clues for incorporating these ideas into a Science of Ethics. As he makes clear we are inherently blinded and cannot see totally different ways of explaining the problem if we think we have the theoretical framework established and merely need to tidy up a few loose ends. Over and over we see the foregoing happening in science. Some idea gains acceptance. This hypothesis/ theorem/ law/ principle is like a clearing in a jungle of ignorance. All the other explanations, unexplainable data, and deficiencies are left as patches of weeds throughout the clearing, or are embodied in the growth that surrounds the settlement. Eventually it is realized that the weeds remain and the boundary isn't growing. So a better hypothesis, theorem, law, principle is searched out to replace the existing one. The new one dispatches some of the patches, extends the boundary of understanding at least at some points and starts the cycle over again.
Physicist Richard Morris sets out [11] to clarify how science actually works in contrast with the way science philosophers such as Francis Bacon and Karl Popper proposed that it should work. He draws on the history of science to demonstrate the "primacy of theory -- the creations of the human mind." He points out that, "All-embracing theoretical visions can be accepted long before there is any evidence to confirm them, while we remain skeptical of the findings of experiments that seem to have no solid theoretical foundation. Anyone who delves deeply in the nature of science cannot help but come to the conclusion that we find the products of the human imagination more convincing than the things we observe. In the end, only experiment can determine whether a theory is true or false. But that is the end of the creativity process in science, not the beginning."[11] It seems to me that Morris' conclusions put Kuhn's ideas in a context that would suggest that the process Kuhn uncovered may be an essential process in the way science has to work. Their process allows scientists to avoid being immobilized by the present ignorance or made permanent victims to the current beliefs.
The quote on myth that follows may demonstrate another aspect of this problem to ponder. "One important social function of myth... is to blind us to what it cannot explain."[12] This is an interesting idea. There is some level at which science could also be said to, "blind us to what it cannot explain." But it seems to me the goal of a Science of Ethics is to be as aware as possible of what is known and what is not known. Science of Ethics must encourage science to realize it is searching for congruency not truth; for a better understanding of everything in order to improve the quality of human life, and only incidental to that a final understanding of how the universe works. Therefore, it might be able to treat the inexplicable with more seriousness than is usually mustered. If one's explanations divert attention from important issues that are being overlooked, then they are a mixed blessing at best.
[p. 2]
However, as implied above it is worth keeping in mind that the steady accumulation of knowledge that science has provided over the past 400 years, may depend on, as Thomas Kuhn proposes, accepting the best paradigm available and collectively and singlemindedly working on it as if it is true. This paradigm allows us to look more deeply into how nature works than any other approach is likely to be able to.
I think, the challenge of a Science of Ethics is to point out all the blind spots in order to help society explore the best way to address them. I would think that a footnote for all myths (and perhaps all scientific theories) should be provided to point out how these ideas divert one's thinking and prevent one from seeing important issues. This would be particularly appropriate for the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
With the better understanding of the universe and humanity's place in it that a Science of Ethics provides, science and ethics achieve a more central and better grounded role in society. When we understand that: Science is the search for congruency everything then fits together. We can make better use of the insights of philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant that science can't provide TRUTH; i.e. Objective/Certain Knowledge. As previously indicated the post-modernists have made this their battle cry. But for them this only leads them to cultural relativity.
Up to this time few persons are ready for the paradigm shift promoted by Science of Ethics. Most individuals have not yet recognized that values are actually not relative since Human Beings Are the Ultimate Reference System, and they have clear ethical needs. However, with congruency as the unifying principle Science of Ethics takes a different path. This is true because thoughts about congruency force us to seriously think about the meaning of faith/belief as it relates to knowledge, interpretation, analysis, and Wisdom. As a result it makes clear that we must recognize that Human Beings Are the Ultimate Reference System, and values are not, therefore, relative. Rather, congruency mandates that knowledge be used to provide every person a Sustainable Belief that their Life Has Meaning. When TRUTH is being discussed, one is looking outward for the reference system. When faith/belief are being discussed, one is looking inward.
Based on this clearer understanding of the basic issues a new foundation will be provided for science, ethics, society in general, and the individual person. The foregoing is necessary if Enlightened Communities made up of Enlightened Persons are to be developed. Our progress in the foregoing direction is greatly assisted by ideas presented by Hans Reichenbach.[13] He makes clear the reasons for the delay in applying the empirical approach more widely. His book is analyzed in VOLUME II, Chapter 10, "Science and the Search for Truth." [5]And this analysis provides additional material to support this Way of Wisdom.
The critical issue in faith/belief is that no idea, position, concept, theory, law, etc. be held more firmly than the evidence warrants. The foregoing is essential for achieving a Sustainable Belief that one's Life Has Meaning. As Reichenbach says, "If error is corrected whenever it is recognized as such, the path of error is the path of truth."[14] And this must be the goal of anyone working to support the establishment of a Science of Ethics and to apply its findings.
"It is impossible to have a knowledge of the world that has the certainty of mathematical truth, it is impossible to establish moral directives that have the impelling objectivity of mathematical, or even of empirical, truth. This is one of the truths that scientific philosophy has uncovered."[15] I agree with Reichenbach's foregoing statements, but not the inferred ideas. One of his key contributions is to show very clearly that there is no "mathematical truth" in the world of matter and energy, only in the world of thought. Mathematics has no direct tie to the real world that would make "mathematical truth" a meaningful concept for discussing the empirical world we live in. Furthermore, as I have tried to make clear, an empirical Science of Ethics is possible that would "establish moral directives" of a compelling nature, more compelling than any mathematical formula. But these "moral directives" are not iron clad, they are theory-based and empirical in nature. That is why the Fourth Way of Wisdom is important. Faith/ belief cannot be avoided. Reichenbach makes obvious that everything that is known is to some degree tentative. Whatever one accepts can never be completely proven. Human beings cannot achieve TRUTH, even the idea that there is such a thing is based on human nature.
[p. 3]
The thoughts one holds today may be largely false or mis-stated. Current goals may be misguided. Present methods may be ill conceived. It may even be that all people cannot achieve a Sustainable Belief that their Life Has Meaning. However, one cannot wait until all the evidence is in before acting because all the evidence will never be in. One must act then on the basis of current knowledge, and this requires faith. Human beings cannot escape faith any more than a fish can escape water. Every act, every deed ultimately depends upon faith and belief for there is no other source in the final analysis.
Percy Bysshe Shelley thought there were three levels of belief (determined by the source of belief): He believed that the most correct beliefs are based on direct perception; next are those based on reason applied to our perceptions. The weakest beliefs are those based on the testimony or authority of others.
I think, Shelley puts an interesting slant on the idea of beliefs. However, I would disagree with the order Shelley arrived at. I would exchange the order of his first and second sources. It seems to me that all direct perception has a certain kind of uncertainty associated with it and that unless a given perception fits with one's past experiences there is a tendency to doubt what has been perceived especially if it happens fast and only once. The most obvious example comes from a magic show. One sees things appear and disappear, move through solid surfaces, stand unsupported, etc. It is the rare person at a magic show who trusts the evidence of their senses and believes that the lady really was sawed in two.
These perceptions violate one's other experiences. So one's reason leads to doubting them. The same is true for other events that violate one's reason, one's understanding of how things work. So actually one has more confidence in a belief when perception is supported by reason than in a perception as an isolated source. When a skeptical person experiences or hears about mystical experiences that violate the laws of science they look for other explanations. The true believer accepts them uncritically as evidence of the supernatural.
Edmund Carpenter[16] even proposes that, "It's not easy to experience the unfamiliar, the unnamed. We say, 'If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it.' But the phrase really should be, 'If I hadn't believed it with all my heart, I wouldn't have seen it.'"
Certainly, Carpenter's point has a kind of validity. But once one gets past the shock it's clear that the facts are not as stated. The truth lies somewhere in between. Our beliefs influence what we see in varying ways. But blind faith and unlimited belief are not necessary for most of what we see. However, the truly unfamiliar and unnamed may be "unseeable." And it is only as our reason constructs a way to tie it into the other things we "know" that interpretations may provide a way to "see" it. It seems to me that this is the case for quantum phenomena. We all have experienced particles – rocks, balls, bullets – and waves. We bring those images with us to the quantum world. But it seems clear to me that whatever quantum phenomena are they are not waves or particles. Rather whatever they are is beyond our current ability to envision.
As for Shelley's third point that testimony or authority of others should lead to our weakest beliefs, I would agree with that. However, most of what we believe is based on the authority of others. Think of anything you believe. I doubt if you will move back to why you believe it more than three or four levels before you get to a belief you have accepted based on the authority of others, or unquestioned experience. The reason we accept it is because we trust the motivations and abilities of those "experts," parents, teachers, leaders, friends, etc. But eventually we learn that even the wisest person still knows very little considering all the things there are to know. Also, anyone can make mistakes. In addition in current societies even the best persons may sometimes lie. For these reasons and many more it must be recognized that there is a need to question all authority especially our own even though we still must make choices and act based on our current understandings and beliefs almost all of which are based on testimony or authority.
Therefore, each of these degrees of belief still must be judged on the basis of their congruency with everything else one believes. How well does a given belief fit with everything else one believes? Are they congruent, or are they in conflict?
[p. 4]
The important point is upon what one bases one's faith. One's faith must be worthy of them as a rational, intelligent animal with a "wisdom" potential. It cannot be a faith that denies one's intelligence, one's ability to reason and to think. It cannot be a faith that leads to torture, exploitation, suppression of thought, and all the other things persons of faith have practiced over human history. It cannot be a faith that overlooks one's emotional side that is one's power and energizer, source of one's strength and sustaining energy. It cannot be a faith based on ignorance, or emotion, or childhood conditioning, or driven by their raw "tribal" propensities.
And one's faith must be no stronger than the evidence that supports it. On some things one can be pretty sure: that in normal circumstances the ground will support one's next step, that evolution explains the existence of current living organisms, that George Washington lived, etc. Other things are very doubtful: That the universe is a product of intelligence that is aware of and cares about human life, that extra-sensory perception actually exists, that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a living human being.
A primary reason the Fourth Way of Wisdom focuses on faith and belief is to develop a way to handle these concepts. This cannot be done by ignoring them or discarding them. Only by developing rules for using and understanding faith and belief, and procedures that allow individuals to follow these rules will all persons be aided in discriminating between growth promoting and growth inhibiting ways to utilize faith and belief.
When the Fourth Way discusses the necessity of faith and belief it is not promoting blind faith, unquestioned belief, or unreflective acceptance of unacknowledged assumptions. Rather, it is just the opposite. It is discussing the faith and belief involved in the assumptions that underlie one's best interpretations. Faith and belief must be based on knowledge and understanding. One's faith must not prevent them from questioning anything. Knowing all positions rest on faith and belief should make it easier to see inconsistencies, incongruencies, and errors. When error and incongruencies are recognized or alternative explanations are presented, change to better positions should be promoted if one accepts the Fourth Way of Wisdom. One's faith and beliefs must be congruent with all human knowledge and experience and not diverted by some culture's glittering trinkets. It must recognize the goal of human progress that allows each person to achieve a sustainable feeling that their life has meaning by their connection with all of humanity.
One's faith must be able to be examined in the light of day. One must look at all the facts and be able to acknowledge each one of them. One must have a faith supported by the best knowledge available. And it must always be compatible with humanity's highest attributes: reason, a Sustainable Feeling that One's Life Has Meaning, intelligence, universality, and our struggle for congruency. The goal, then, is to ensure that knowledge and choices are consistent with the evidence supporting them, and that they can change as evidence grows.
.
.
GO ON TO FIFTH WAY OF WISDOM .
.
1. URL for Bill Schultz: http://www.agnostic.org
2. URL for Thomas Henry Huxley page: http://www.vbooks.org/free/THHuxley/coll_essays_5/Agnosticism.html
3. FUNDAMENTALISMS OBSERVED, Edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, p. 81-82, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1991.
4. Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, ibid., p. 9.
5. VOLUME II, Chapter 10, "Science and the Search for Truth."
6. Edward O. Wilson points out the importance of this idea in his book, CONSILIENCE: The Unity of Knowledge, Knopf, New York, 1998.
7. THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS, Thomas S. Kuhn, p. 170, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996.
8. THE CULTURE OF PAIN, David B. Morris, p. 112, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1991.
9. "Science is its own master and recognizes no authority beyond its confines." THE RISE OF SCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY, Hans Reichenbach, p. 214, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1951.
10. "THE UNIVERSE, THE ELEVENTH DIMENSION, AND EVERYTHING: What We Know and How We Know It," Richard Morris, p. 164, Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, 1999.
11. Morris, op. cit., p. 184.
12. Morris, op. cit., p. 10.
13. Hans Reichenbach, op. cit.
14. Hans Reichenbach, ibid., p. 326.
15. Reichenbach, ibid., p. 324.
16. THE ART AND PRACTICE OF LOVING, Frank Andrews, p. 208, G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1991.
.
.
.
.
.