Epistemology and Political Correctness

Abstract: Trying to find a reasonable point between notions of human access to pure knowledge and truth, and equivalent weighing of all opinions is a challenge. The fruit at both ends of the spectrum however appear to be low hanging. Suspension of both belief and disbelief seems to be required for cooperative discourse. Division is in no way in the interest of the greater good. The representation of the greater good likely requires focusing on agreements; as opposed to disagreements. The former tends to result in mobilization toward favorable change; and the latter tends to result in stagnation, and no discernible change, in the context of the greater good. The outcomes of the latter prevent the majority from being effective in representing themselves. The Social Contract: What does the individual owe to the collective? This is a very good question for negotiating one’s place in society. We can think of law as a system that enforces the more dire aspects of the social contract. But, what about being a good samaritan? The apparent function of living within a collective is symbiotic interactions. Our standard of living is maintained by working together; in the interest of that greater good. In reaping the benefits of that cooperation; it would appear that the individual owes the collective cooperation, in the interest of that greater good. Of course, the specifics are complex and at some times complicated; but as a general rule, this seems reasonable. This is also, in general, the manner in which humans approach interactions with each other. Barring some form of disorder, we naturally contribute to the greater good; and have little patience for situations where others do not. Many studies have demonstrated that we have natural born behaviors that promote cooperation; in the interest of the greater good. It’s part of our survival instinct. It expresses itself in our behaviors; and the more dire the conditions, the more strongly we can expect it to express itself. This is a well optimized part of our nature; that is very good at sorting out signal noise, and as the situations become more dire, the signal noise becomes more apparent. We are literally, naturally optimized to solve such problems. Unfortunately, dire straights are where more general consensus tends to be observed; and thus consequences of mass suffering appear to be part of the process. Reason vs Control: How much should an individual’s opinion weigh in collective reasoning? We all have our gifts to give to the greater good. We are all good at something; and that is valuable to all of us as a whole. It is in all of our interest to allow those who are particularly good at what they do to do what they do. It benefits us all. So, how do we weigh opinions in general? What can we expect from others? What we generally expect from each other is results. If a person is good at and helpful with what they do, then that should be observed in the results. Of course, the specifics are complex and at some times complicated; but as a general rule, this seems reasonable. If an individuals competence is questionable, the lack of results cannot be obscured indefinitely. Again, we are optimized to sort the signal noise; as the disorder that results from incompetence becomes more apparent to us. What we do naturally then has an opportunity to express itself. Whether an individual is behaving reasonably or in a controlling manner is eventually detectable and correctable… by our own nature. Reason vs Force: What behaviors can ethically and morally be enforced? This is a particularly interesting question now; as information has become a valuable commodity. How much enforcement can we leverage on the value of information? This is something that we probably have tens of thousands of years of practice at; with law and it’s prototypical forms. We tend to use force when obvious harm has occurred. Of course, the specifics are complex and at some times complicated; but as a general rule, this seems reasonable. The most difficult aspect of arguing for more forceful approaches is probably presenting an adequate argument for the guilt of the accused. In many cases however it’s also dificult to argue that actual harm occurred. This is something that has been debated for some time; in the context of censorship. In politics, it’s something that goes back to the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution; and even farther to the right of the Jester to mock the King, and has also been a right of advisors, throughout written history. With this too we are naturally optimized to sort out the specifics. The signal noise essentially sorts itself out; with the disorder that results, and then we do what we naturally do, to address the issue. Harm is eventually obvious; and we have natural responses to it. It’s becoming more clear that defaulting to force where harm isn’t so clear can be harmful in and of itself. This is something that we have observed for thousands of years; and there is every reason to expect that we will continue to apply it to that particular harm, when the disorder that it creates makes it more obvious. Reason vs Adamancy: It may be the case that universal truths exist; however human access to them is questionable at best. One of the most useful aspects of Theology may be how well it distinguishes human understanding from omniscience. Our natural predispositions toward social behaviors may be taken as divine intervention; without any harm what so ever resulting. There is no evidence that awareness of governing dynamics would have a significant effect on social order and coherence; in that awareness is such a small part of human behavior. That’s the suggestion that the evidence makes. The majority of scientists are religious; and the majority of the ones who are not keep putting their faith in the hands of incoherent committees… against the collective wisdom of the Behavioral Sciences. This is natural behavior. This is part of the processes that we are predisposed to. Adamancy is in essence denial of the vast uncertainty that causes us proportional anxiety. Fear of the unknown is observed to be a substantial part of our behavior. Our own anxiety is probably the root of adamancy. We stand at our pulpits, preaching our truths; as if we ourselves are omniscient. We’re all guilty of it. I’m doing it now; for instance. Adamancy is not a signal of strong Epistemology. It’s an indication of weak Epistemology. The certainty in adamancy is in and of itself denial of the probability of vast uncertainty. There is every reason to conclude that it is more productive to concentrate on assertions that have predictive value; as opposed to assertions that fall within a familiar context. The logic of predictive value is fairly sound. If the assertion has some generally useful value, it should be expressed in the outcomes. If there is a case where this doesn’t appear to be happening, the disorder that will likely result will eventually, likely lead to correction. This is observed; but that of course doesn’t make it correct. We are just doing our best.