The Internet is an impartial tool with which we can support our delusions of reality, or conversely build an objective and valid world-view.  The tendency is toward the former, it takes intention and education to pursue the latter course…

I’ve been reading “The Varieties of Scientific Experience” by the late Carl Sagan. I love Sagan’s publicly available writings, and I agree whole-heartedly with every bit of his thinking I’ve come across regarding skepticism, reason, agnosticism, scientific investigation and his recommendations for social agendas. In fact, I agree so vehemently that I wonder why I should bother reading his book. It is essentially mental masturbation; an opportunity for pounding my fist, clapping my hands and exclaiming “YEAH!!”. From my personal perspective the book is mostly bereft of new material which might persuade or inform me. But I love Carl, and the book contains some interesting anecdotes which were otherwise unknown to me. I find myself feeling guilty about “wasting time” while reading it though, since it does not really move my mind into new territory.

I often attend meetings of the Kendall County Democrats, where I am able to join folks with some similar opinions about politics, policy and candidates. So far, we have never discussed policy, theory, position or strategy. In any case, there has never been any debate which challenges me, or causes me to question my preexisting conclusions. Again, I wonder if the benefit of my attendance is limited due to the homogeneity of the experience.

My favorite websites include those which convey information about current scientific discoveries, pragmatic and rational political theory, scientifically-augmented positions on economic and social policy and environmentally sustainable conservation. I never visit sites with active dialogues about the Christian Rapture, anti-abortion, theories of politics or policy viewed as divinely sanctioned, anti-minority rants, those with unscientifically supportable contentions about global warming or the environment, theories regarding mystical “energy”, homeopathy, pseudoscience, or any of a million other perspective which are anathema to my personal preference for pragmatic, scientific and compassionate philosophies of life. I like learning new things and discovering alternative perspectives, but a vast number of my fundamental views are never likely to change – and I don’t seek to do so.

The Internet is a fantastic tool for finding information. One can find an arbitrarily large amount of argumentation, “data”, pithy quotes, personal claims and opinions and passionately held positions on pretty much anything one wishes to investigate. Certainly a similar statement can be made regarding other media – whether print, television, radio or special-interest clubs; but the Internet brings the largest quantity of information, it brings it for a trivially low price, and it can bring it to you in private.

An irrefutable truism is “like seeks like”. This notion is encapsulated in various aphorisms and exclamations of folk-wisdom such as “birds of a feather flock together” and “judge a man by the company he keeps”. In general, people will seek others with whom they can associate without conflict. People with similar beliefs, behaviors, outlooks and ambitions will congregate. They will then commence to patting one another on the back, looking for ways to differentiate themselves from those with incompatible views or, in worst cases, inciting assaults on the persons or ideas of contrarians.

In addition to validated, relevant and rationally derived information, the Internet supports the promulgation of highly biased opinions, badly argued contentions and bogus “facts”. It provides access to summaries of peer-reviewed scientific studies (on of my favorites is ScienceDaily), and occasionally the studies themselves – though too often to get to a real scientific paper via the Internet, one must pay a lot of money to subscribe to a publishing service. It enables anybody, no matter their degree of rigor, logic or discernment to write and share their ideas with anybody else online. Using the Internet, a scientist can share data and engage in conversations with other interested parties, in real-time and across the span of continents and oceans.

The Internet is a simmering stew of all the ideas and opinions capable of being expressed by human-kind. Mixed together are political and religious fanaticism, skeptical inquiry, compassion, hatred, invective, praise. There are passionate calls for experimental verification and gentle appeals to gut feelings. Any person looking to support virtually any idea or conclusion can find corroboration on the Internet. What then makes one set of proffered ideas “better” than any other? Why, if I can find supporting evidence for aliens, trickle-down economics, carbon-14 dating, the power of intercessory payer, global warming, intelligent design, quantum mechanics and quantum healing – why should I believe one view over some other? Why should “scientific theories” be considered any more valid than any other theories humans can or will conceive? After all, relativity, quantum mechanics and evolution are all “theories”, so why should I feel compelled to accept these particular theories as valid explanations of the world? Is it just because a bunch of know-it-all elites working in universities want me to believe what they tell me?

Let me digress for a moment to a pet topic of mine; the hierarchy of epistemology, or stated differently – the levels of intelligent thought and knowing. Here I will present the levels succinctly, because I don’t want this to be a thorough discussion and dissection of the hierarchy itself. The hierarchy may be usefully represented as a pyramid, comprising the following layers from thickest and simplest to thinest and most complex:

1) Data – Raw symbols comprised of well-defined physical states and arrangements of energy and matter.
2) Information – A correspondence or correlation made between the symbols and a system they represent.
3) Knowledge – Awareness regarding the cause-and-effect relationships between and within systems based on information about and representations of said systems.
4) Wisdom – Verifiable and valid prediction and postdiction of causal phenomena based upon accurate modeling of a system and extrapolation of its behaviors.
5) Enlightenment – A recognition of the cross-applicability of wisdom from one system or category of systems to another or others.

Certainly a good portion of a book could be written about this hierarchy, but let me point out the concepts relevant to the current discussion of determining what to believe – specifically concerning the third and fourth levels of comprehension. An essential idea is that people need to know how their own actions, or how processes and actions in the external world influence each the other. People are story-telling and pattern-making entities. If we perceive a pattern (e.g. a rooster crows and the Sun comes up), we are very likely to draw a cause-and-effect relationship between the pieces of the pattern. Often times, if we witness an event with a inobvious cause (whether repeatedly or as a single aberration), we will invent causes to explain the event, because we have learned – events always have causes. Now to personalize it: If an event or effect is (or seems) obviously unrelated to any action I take, my liberty for believing causes expands greatly. Ultimately in such cases, I am free to believe any thing I wish about the causes because, as I have indicated, nothing I do makes any difference to the start, progression or outcome of the event. I can chose in such cases to believe in little purple fairies, invisible spaghetti-monsters, quantum inter-dimensional dark-energy coagulations, the mystic chants of my neighbor, the proclivities of a god or absolutely anything else. When I make such a belief choice, the world as I know it continues functioning exactly as it had before and I can go on about my business of facilitating my own personal survival. In these cases, my intellectual curiosity has been satisfied, the world has been comprehended (correctly or not), and my anxiety about not understanding something has been diminished.

Take the theory of the conservation of sock-hangers. A dear friend of mine has proposed that as socks vanish from the clean or dirty laundry, there is a correlating increase in the number of hangers in one’s closet. The correspondence may not be one-to-one, one sock for one hanger, but there is, according to this theory, a real conservation principle at work. Now I am willing to consider this principle as a counter-theory to my own sock-hole theory. My theory says: The holes that develop in socks eventually expand in the dryer until they consume an entire sock, making it vanish from the universe.

Being a person with a scientific inclination, I recognize that if one proposes a causal relationship between two phenomena, such phenomena must be, no surprise here, “observable”. In other words, if a relationship exists, then it exists any time I should chose to look for it. Scientists, being rather stuffy and over-involved in laws (of nature), have a special framework for observation – it’s called experimentation. In an experiment, one subjects a system in a well-known state of being to other well-specified influences. One concludes the experiment by observing the changes in the system under scrutiny. It’s really no more complicated than that: If a supposed connection, cause or relationship exists, then it can be observed (or there *is* no such relationship). Scientists spend a lot of time and effort on the “well-known” and “well-specified” parts of the prior description, and they spend a lot of time throwing alternative explanations back and forth; but in the end they come down to favoring that explanation which does the best job (as characterized by observation) of predicting and explaining the behavior of the world around them (yes, I slipped in that “prediction” idea, but it’s only the formalized characterization of a future outcome based on explanations of prior observation).

Back to the socks: I began by counting my hangers. For several loads of laundry, I carefully counted each sock which went into the washer. I then counted the socks which went into the dryer. Finally, I carefully counted the socks which I was able to retrieve from the dryer. To my feigned surprise, I discovered that the count of socks was consistently identical – furthermore, the number of hangers never changed. My only possible conclusions are:

1. Socks do not turn into hangers, at least while anybody is watching and counting carefully.
2. Socks do not get eaten by holes, at least whenever they are scrutinized.

Notice that my conclusions are still rather vague. It turns out the the conclusion one is able to draw from highly controlled observations are also highly constrained. For example, I said nothing about the color or texture of socks – perhaps I get unmatched socks, rather than simply fewer socks. And perhaps this is because their colors change – this is not an theory I tested via observation. I also can’t definitively say anything about how socks behave when they are not carefully observed. This winnowing away of what can and cannot be concluded is a highly useful means of discovering theories about how the world works, and it is an incredibly important part of science.

Finally (with regards to the sock phenomena), with this simple observation I have not been able to completely rule out either theory, I’ve only narrowed the contexts in which the theories *might* apply. However, given my preexisting bias toward scientific law, theory and principles, I can state with haughty certainty that socks do not mutate into and translocate as hangers; nor do they vanish into holes. These confidences arise from my acceptance of the first two laws of thermodynamics. I am confident that with further experimentation and observation I can eliminate every context in which these sock-theories might otherwise apply. But what if I’m wrong?! That, my friends, is science! Read up on quantum mechanics and you’ll discover an almost exactly analogous history of theory and observation, except there, the “socks” (elementary particles) do indeed behave in counter-intuitive ways which call basic assumptions into question. If some scientists had not been willing to test all the assumptions and to be very, very careful about what was able to be concluded, our knowledge of microscopic physics would be vastly less accurate a description of reality.

How does this relate to the hierarchy of intelligent thought? Recall that knowledge is an awareness of the existence and form of cause-and-effect relationships in the world. Recognizing which actions lead to which effects is the basis of knowledge – knowing facts about a thing (the color of the sky, the atomic weight of rubidium, the name of your grandmother, that pit-bulls have a mean disposition) are elements of information. Being able to use these facts in contexts where they are germane to a cause or an effect is the essence of knowledge. Wisdom is a still more refined notion. Wisdom characterizes the correct prediction of future cause-and-effect sequences (causal chains), or the correct inference of past causal events which led to the observed subsequent or current effects. Wisdom is, in short, the correct application of knowledge as a predictive or postdictive framework – it is applied knowledge.

Science is the best means available for figuring out what constitutes knowledge – the knowledge that accurately characterizes the actions and behaviors of objects, energy and people. From social sciences to physical sciences, the constant search to discover valid causal relationships (knowledge) and then use these relationships to guide future intentional behaviors, explain past events, or predict pending outcomes characterizes all science. Beyond knowledge, science done correctly and at its best is nothing other than a search for, and the recording and conveyance of wisdom.

As mentioned previously, people have a fantastic ability to recognize or imagine patterns, and a great gift for telling stories. The problem with pattern mastery is, the patterns we recognize may be due to mere coincidence, insufficient information and knowledge, or wishful thinking. Similarly, the stories we tell one another need not be true – if you say anything with enough conviction some (or many) people will believe you. Many people are perfectly content and in no large way directly harmed by believing in unreal patterns (i.e. incorrect information and knowledge) or by believing bogus stories. Insomuch as stories serve as lessons about, or recipes for behavior, they constitute in such cases an attempt to impart knowledge. If their intent is to persuade you to subscribe to a particular set of expectations about certain chains of events (often stemming from your own behavior), then they constitute an attempt to convey wisdom. If the wisdom so encapsulated is inaccurate, if the effects of following the recipe of cause-and effect do not match the promised, intended or expected consequences, then the “wisdom” is unhelpful, and thus, not really wisdom. Recall that wisdom is, by the precise definition put forth earlier, the effective or accurate use of knowledge to bring about or accurately explain phenomena and situations. But people, being often stubborn, are too often likely to keep unwisely applying the same formula of behavior while expecting different results.

One of the primary ways people are able to persist in such an unwise state of being, is that they are able to find other people who believe similarly (or identically) unwise things. Peer pressure and peer support can be powerful motivators vis-a-vis behavior. From simple fallacies such as “everybody says it, so it must be true,” to “Mr. Authority said it, so it must be true,” human beings are too often easily persuaded to discount the evidence of their own experience – much less, VERY much less the evidence provided by others. Furthermore, if an argument or piece of evidence is contrary to what a person believes to be his own experience, or the experience of a trusted source, then the possibility of change is infinitesimally smaller.

None of us can, of his or her own accord, validate and verify every bit of information or knowledge or every prescription for wisdom with which we come into contact. I have never done experiments in molecular biology, sociology or macroeconomics. Neither have I dissected or experimented with my car’s engine, my microwave oven, the fibers in my stain-resistant carpet or the rat-poison in my garage. I’ve not been to Antarctica, Mt. Everest, Australia or the Moon, yet I believe them to be real places where real people are or have been. I will be credulous of and view as credible most any story told me by a source who has some proven (or often times simply asserted) credentials, or who provides a modicum of supporting evidence – especially if the topic is of little consequence to me personally. I can no more help such a tendency than can anybody else. What I also am able to do is bring a considerable amount of knowledge and a non-trivial bit of wisdom to bear to quickly put a claim to a “sanity test”. Specifically: does the claim clearly contradict a thing I know to be otherwise true, does it contradict a body of contrary evidence or thinking? If it does contradict other thinking, whence arises this conflict, and which argument is more credible and consistent with knowledge about the way the world, its pieces and people interact?

The most important “sanity test” of all is: Does the claim lend itself to verification and objective validation – regardless of whether you yourself intend to verify it. For example, it would be unwise to claim the island of Lilliput existed at 41-degrees north and 88-degrees west, for any skeptical person could seek to verify such a claim, and would find at those coordinates not an island of tiny people, but Oswego Illinois populated by normal human beings. A person living in Australia would be less likely to try and (in)validate the claim than a person living in say, Chicago. The mere fact that a claim can be easily refuted or verified lends significant credence in those claims where no evidence of invalidation exists. If a claim of fact, a purported bit of knowledge or a supposedly effective recommendation of wisdom is offered in such a way as to a-priori diminish or deny skeptical refutation, alarm bells should sound loudly (e.g. “This is the true nature of the Bermuda Triangle, and scientists who say otherwise are just trying to fool you.”). It is much more difficult to separate fact from fiction when dealing with claims which cannot be easily refuted, which might in fact require great effort to validate or disprove (e.g. the creation of very heavy transuranic elements).

In such cases, where proof or disproof is not easy (or even possible), people who approach problems scientifically have a final intellectual tool: Occam’s Razor. The principle of the Razor can be stated in many ways, but one of the most direct is, “Given many possible explanations for a phenomena, the simplest is the most likely to be true.” You can find many discussions of Occam’s Razor in books and on the Internet. For the purposes of the current discussion, note that if a claim requires many assumptions and complicated processes to explain a phenomena, it is far less appealing than a claim which does at least as good a job as an explanation, but which needs fewer of each. I can presume that invisible aliens visit me just before I fall asleep and sprinkle magic sleep-dust over me so that I dream – a claim which leads to all sorts of questions about aliens (and their origin and transport), invisibility, breaking-and-entering, and the nature of sleep-dust. Alternatively, I can accept the far simpler explanation that natural neural activity is responsible for dreams – in which case I need only understand neurotransmitter chemicals and effects and diurnal hormonal cycles.

How does any of this relate to the Internet, with which discussion this article began? The Internet is an incredible forum for publishing any idea, supposed fact or bit of wisdom held by nearly any person on Earth. It is also a great meeting-place for any given person to find like-minded or like-believing groups of other persons. It facilitates the dissemination of plausible, scientific and objective content as well as quackery, mysticism, irrationality, bigotry and passionately argued fantasies. If a curious and relatively open-minded person seeks information on a given topic, such a person is likely to encounter both truth and fiction. Some sites with broad authorship, peer-like review such as Wikipedia help in large measure because they are gaining both credibility and popularity as a source of valid ideas, facts and knowledge. Even Wikipedia should not be viewed as being an ultimate (or more properly a penultimate) authority, though in general its collective distillation of information and knowledge is better at yielding accurate ideas than are the posted opinions of some random person. This is in contrast to a “no-holds-barred” search for information such as facilitated by Google (with clear exception made for Google-scholar).

The best filter of purported ideas is an informed and more importantly, a skeptical reader.  But skepticism does not develop in a vacuum, nor does it flourish in a context where the ideas bandied about come only from like-minded people (unless the forum is by nature a skeptical one).   Because people seek to operate in their comfort zones, reactions to even impartial skepticism are too often taken personally, merely because such skepticism likely pushes a person outside said comfort zone.  Additionally, skepticism by its very nature demands that one place a high value on objective verifiability, the accuracy of causal explanation and the search for simpler alternative explanations.  In short, skepticism is an embodiment of the the scientific method.  Search-engines and blog-publishing tools are not intelligent enough to apply the scientific method; the best they can do is attest to or represent the credentials of the source.

It takes a skeptical person, or a person very careful about his sources, to accumulate or propose factual ideas by any means other than happenstance.  If one’s sources are one’s philosophical and intellectual cohorts, and if one’s skeptical (i.e. scientific) abilities have not been well trained, the probability that such a person will posses and propigate an objective and realistic world view diminishes significantly.

We are story-telling and pattern-building creatures. If we do not learn to treat stories skeptically and to build patterns objectively, we are likely to keep deluding ourselves – and just as likely to seek the company of others similarly deluded.  The Internet is impartial about the direction we chose in this regard.  It is a tool with which we can support delusion or build a vastly more realistic world view.  The choice comes down to the search-filter in your head.

Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007 @ 2:35 am Intelligence - Natural and Artificial, Science, Towards a New Liberalism
RSS 2.0 Trackback