The challenge of grappling with the unknown transcends politics; it's a constant in science, personal matters, and artistic endeavors. Nations and individuals have different styles or methods for confronting the unknown, resolving conflict, and setting policy.
The image of Lady Justice can portray one method for confronting chaos or the unknown. In particular, an image of a woman wearing a blindfold to minimize her bias and using scales to balance both pros and cons represents the epitome of rational thinking. She uses a tool to measure objective reality to decide for her. This encapsulates a rational approach to the unknown. This is not a solely Western idea; it traces back to Ancient Egypt, where Maat, the Goddess of Wisdom, also used scales for objective measurement, emphasizing the need for impartiality over gut feelings and groupthink. Similarly, the Eastern concept of yin and yang advocates for a balance between each side, like a scale, rather than the defeat of one side by the other. The question for modern Americans is this: Do we embody this rational style of avoiding bias and using objective criteria to make decisions, or do we follow emotions, succumb to partisanship, disseminate one-sided information, and try to drown out or suppress opposing views?
Wisdom Over Absolute Knowledge
For a scale to work, it can be used to determine which side has more substance or calibrated against known quantities. Scales aren't used to identify absolute or foundational truth but can provide accurate relativistic weight measures at a given time. We can critically evaluate arguments based on the strength of the evidence and arguments given our current understanding without claiming to possess the absolute eternal truth. Like the stock market that shows the present value of a company, these numbers don't have to mean anything except for the current best measurement of the available performance of the pro/con data, arguments, and evidence. The absence of complete certainty should not deter us from striving for objectivity, examining both pros and cons and seeking objective criteria for judgment.
Hannah Arendt, a Jewish German philosophy student during the rise of Hitler, questioned whether philosophy lost its way. She observed that Socrates drank the poison his government told him to without engaging in politics and fighting for what he believed. She also didn't like that after his death. His student Plato failed even to try to address the sickness in society that killed Socrates. Instead, he ran away. He went on a journey to meditate and study the unknowable, or things that remain unsettled thousands of years later—turning away from politics or practical matters of what we should do. Arendt also saw her fellow students get excellent grades but fail to stand up or even see the problems with Hitler. She said philosophy should be concerned with the practical details of what we should do. She didn't like the wasted thousands of years making hardly any progress while humanity committed atrocity after atrocity, with hardly any comments from philosophers.
We must be concerned with more than what decisions our society makes. We must look deeper. Like any student, we must be required to show our math of what arguments we accepted, rejected, and why. We must be concerned with the style we use to make our decisions.
We must be concerned with what we should do and why, but we should go about these practical questions with a scientific, systematic, and philosophical style. Therefore, we must use our wisdom to weigh the pros and cons of each argument and decide what we should do based on a systematic, quantitative review of the pro/con arguments and their sub-arguments that the other arguments and claims are free from logical fallacy, their level of verification, relevance, and importance if true. We do not need absolute knowledge to start the process of scoring our arguments and tying our conclusions to the score of the arguments. It is often impossible to have absolute knowledge about complex issues. However, the critical question is if we have built advanced enough, we can still strive for objectivity by considering all sides of an issue and using our best judgment.
The stock market is a good analogy, for we can use simple algorithms that measure the supply and demand and asking price for each stock to measure the relative strength of a company. The stock market is constantly fluctuating, and there is no way to predict with certainty which stocks will go up and which ones will go down. However, nothing can outperform the stock market, and it's simple algorithms to identify today's best guess of the relative worth of a company.
Similarly, we can make educated guesses about the best course of action in any given situation by weighing the pros and cons of each option and considering how these arguments, evidence, and data stand up to systematic analysis. We are not like the dogmatic believers of simplistic solutions who say they made the right (conservative or liberal) decision. We do not need to have absolute certainty to make good decisions. We need to use wisdom and judgment in the proper process or style. I propose using the suitable method instead of claiming we have fail-proof principles. Our principles are our process.
Specifically, we can use data to:
- Identify and understand the different options available to us.
- Assess the potential consequences of each option.
- Weigh the pros and cons of each option.
- Make informed decisions based on the information we have.
Data can help us to make better decisions in several ways. It can help us to
- Identify patterns and trends.
- Identify potential biases and errors in judgment.
- Compare different options and make informed trade-offs.
- Monitor and evaluate our decisions over time.
It is important to note that data is not a silver bullet. Data cannot tell us what to do. It can only provide us with information that we can use to make informed decisions. Ultimately, the decision of what to do is up to us.
However, using data wisely can improve our chances of making good decisions in the face of uncertainty.
The Crossroads of Information
We stand at a crossroads: we can let information reach us through filtered channels—be it advertising campaigns, memes, interest groups, anecdotes, intuitions, or media narratives—or we can take control of our destiny by employing a rational style. This involves metaphorically donning a blindfold and using a scale to weigh the relative merits of arguments and evidence.
The Legacy of Our Founding Fathers
Our founding fathers envisioned a system where power is accountable to reason. To uphold this vision, they implemented checks and balances, freedom of speech, the press, and representation. Today, we have more tools. We have formalized cost-benefit analysis, the science of bias reduction, and conflict resolution. Let's, therefore, continue their work with our new tools. This legacy can be extended through a dedicated political party that employs automated conflict resolution and cost-benefit analysis processes. As a nation, we must remember that our conduct can still reflect our core ideals even when the future is uncertain. Whether we find ourselves in positions of weakness or power, our focus should remain on upholding democracy, the rule of law, the peaceful transition of power, the removal of bias, and thoughtful evaluation of the pros and cons of each issue
The Digital Public Square
We tried for several years to have unorganized conversations that allowed for the creation of echo chambers and my team against the other team. We behaved like cave dwellers, demonized the other side, and pretended our side was as virtuous as angels. This was to be expected. At no point in time has disorganized interaction led to anything other than mobs, like the French Revolution. Einstein said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." We can't convince Twitter or Facebook to use responsible web design to ensure beliefs have well-organized lists of reasons to agree and disagree and that supporters of conclusions come into contact with reasons to differ. But we can design better forums.
This rational approach aligns with the principles of democracy. It offers a balanced and thoughtful way to navigate the complexities of the modern world. It calls for a collective commitment to objectivity, reasoned debate, and the weighing of evidence, thereby providing a sustainable path forward in an increasingly complex and uncertain world.
No comments:
Post a Comment