Glass Half-Filled
If you give someone a glass of water some may say it’s half full and some may say it’s half empty. However, some may comment on the degree to which the essential physical properties of the water have been restricted by its conformity to the glass.
This is not a trivial observation since it applies to many things. For example, when we formulate the expression of an idea verbally the concepts involved are seriously restricted and modified by the words used, application of grammarical structures and the logical rules applied. It also applies to the concepts and thought processes involved as well. In other words when we talk about a particular idea it is our concept of the idea and not the ‘thing’ itself that we are trying to articulate.
This applies to scientific endeavours as well. The theories we develop are nothing more than verbal expression of concept we develop. It maybe said that these concepts are developed by reference to observables (experimentally obtained ‘facts’). However, it is our psyche that is considering, interpreting and incorporating these ‘observables’. In other words, we develop a ‘world view’ or, to phrase it more simply, ‘ideas’ based on this information and the theory is the verbal expression, and so seriously restricted and modified by the formulation of this world view, the words used to express it, application of grammarical structures and the logical rules applied (there may be other influences as well).
Further, the ‘observable’ is severely restricted by the experiment and instruments used in the experiment and are, in reality, nothing more than some incomplete and fuzzy reflection of what is being observed. Of course the experiment itself is based on theory and current ‘knowledge’, all of` which is subject to the same analysis. It is clear to see how the particular equipment used must restrict what we observe regarding the properties of whatever it is for which we are attempting to learn the essence by conducting the experiment. It may be a bit harder to see that the design of the experiment, what equipment is used, the construction of the equipment, the recording of the results, their processing, interpretation and integration are seriously restricted in a fashion as described, but it must. Of course, what makes a good scientist is being able to come up with something useful despite the above restrictions.
For a quick illustration see ”E really does equal mc squared”, G&M, 21Dec.’05,(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051221.wmit1221/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/?). The article reports that some scientist conducted an experiment to determine the equation e=mc2 to a greater degree of accuracy, explaining that it is only a theory. There are a few things to keep in mind when reading this article. There is no indication that the scientist made any reference to what light is. It seems a bit strange that someone would be conducting such an experiment without even know what is light(‘c’ refers to the speed of light) and if we don’t know what light is how can we talk about its speed. On the other and he explains that this theory (expressed by this mathematical equation) is quite useful -vis.: “GPS is the most common use of the theory in modern life”. He concludes:” However, despite surviving its most difficult test to date, Prof. Pritchard said it doesn't prove Einstein's theory to be absolutely correct. Future physicists will undoubtedly subject it to even more precise tests because more accurate checks imply that our theory of the world is in fact more and more complete."
The second thing to keep in mind is that, as can be seen from the above quote, he is referring to our ‘world view’. On the other hand, he is operating under a misconception when he says “more accurate checks imply that our theory of the world is in fact more and more complete” since he is equating our ‘world view’ with reality - clearly not accurate. If all we are interested in is a drink of water then restricting the essence of water by pouring it into a glass may be tolerated. However, if we are interested in the essence of water we are clearly severely restricted in what we can say about its physical and chemical properties. This also applied to attempting to understand a particular circumstance or incident, en event.
As a lawyer I attempt to get to the bottom of things by asking questions. However, clearly asking questions restricts the information we obtains severely and the information we obtain is subject to interpretation (or ‘twisting’) since it is, by necessity, ambiguous (some lawyer have been accused of using this as a strategy). So, although professing to get at ‘the truth’ in reality what is obtained is some prejudiced and vague reflection of the truth. The further we get from a specific incident and the closer we get to trying to understand the ‘essence’ of someone’s situation the greater this problem. This problem is heightened if we apply predetermined questions.
A good example of this are the application forms the Canada Immigration requires the person to fill in (accurately, truthfully and completely). By the very nature of forms they are a predetermined set of questions which they have decided will get to the essence of the issue (spousal sponsorship, say). In my experience it is very seldom that by answering them one gets an understanding of the essence of the relationship and the persons’ circumstance. Further, it doesn’t matter what list of questions they put in the application forms this will be the case - to a greater or lesser degree (fortunately for me, since it gives me a job). When I am interviewing someone I must also keep in mind the cultural aspect.
A list of predetermined questions immediately restricts the information gathering by the Western bias that experience must be ‘objective’, ‘chronological’ and obey the logical rules implied with the assumption of ‘causality’ (cause and effect). There is also the underlying belief, very Western in my opinion, that information obtained in such a manner is correct (keep in mind that in Mediaeval times Westerners operated under the belief that answers obtained thru torture were correct and that trial by ordeal was a legitimate manner of getting at the truth - it is interesting to note that this lead to the development of the institution of lawyers).
Very early in my career doing refugee claims I determined the importance of my Western bias and its potential for restricting my ability to learn the essence of the situation. On the other hand, if we want to get the essence of a circumstance or a person asking questions can be useful and even necessary. But, its restricting influence may be reduced allowing us to come to a more useful ‘world view’ by not approaching it with a predetermined set of questions.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, January, 2005
This is not a trivial observation since it applies to many things. For example, when we formulate the expression of an idea verbally the concepts involved are seriously restricted and modified by the words used, application of grammarical structures and the logical rules applied. It also applies to the concepts and thought processes involved as well. In other words when we talk about a particular idea it is our concept of the idea and not the ‘thing’ itself that we are trying to articulate.
This applies to scientific endeavours as well. The theories we develop are nothing more than verbal expression of concept we develop. It maybe said that these concepts are developed by reference to observables (experimentally obtained ‘facts’). However, it is our psyche that is considering, interpreting and incorporating these ‘observables’. In other words, we develop a ‘world view’ or, to phrase it more simply, ‘ideas’ based on this information and the theory is the verbal expression, and so seriously restricted and modified by the formulation of this world view, the words used to express it, application of grammarical structures and the logical rules applied (there may be other influences as well).
Further, the ‘observable’ is severely restricted by the experiment and instruments used in the experiment and are, in reality, nothing more than some incomplete and fuzzy reflection of what is being observed. Of course the experiment itself is based on theory and current ‘knowledge’, all of` which is subject to the same analysis. It is clear to see how the particular equipment used must restrict what we observe regarding the properties of whatever it is for which we are attempting to learn the essence by conducting the experiment. It may be a bit harder to see that the design of the experiment, what equipment is used, the construction of the equipment, the recording of the results, their processing, interpretation and integration are seriously restricted in a fashion as described, but it must. Of course, what makes a good scientist is being able to come up with something useful despite the above restrictions.
For a quick illustration see ”E really does equal mc squared”, G&M, 21Dec.’05,(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051221.wmit1221/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/?). The article reports that some scientist conducted an experiment to determine the equation e=mc2 to a greater degree of accuracy, explaining that it is only a theory. There are a few things to keep in mind when reading this article. There is no indication that the scientist made any reference to what light is. It seems a bit strange that someone would be conducting such an experiment without even know what is light(‘c’ refers to the speed of light) and if we don’t know what light is how can we talk about its speed. On the other and he explains that this theory (expressed by this mathematical equation) is quite useful -vis.: “GPS is the most common use of the theory in modern life”. He concludes:” However, despite surviving its most difficult test to date, Prof. Pritchard said it doesn't prove Einstein's theory to be absolutely correct. Future physicists will undoubtedly subject it to even more precise tests because more accurate checks imply that our theory of the world is in fact more and more complete."
The second thing to keep in mind is that, as can be seen from the above quote, he is referring to our ‘world view’. On the other hand, he is operating under a misconception when he says “more accurate checks imply that our theory of the world is in fact more and more complete” since he is equating our ‘world view’ with reality - clearly not accurate. If all we are interested in is a drink of water then restricting the essence of water by pouring it into a glass may be tolerated. However, if we are interested in the essence of water we are clearly severely restricted in what we can say about its physical and chemical properties. This also applied to attempting to understand a particular circumstance or incident, en event.
As a lawyer I attempt to get to the bottom of things by asking questions. However, clearly asking questions restricts the information we obtains severely and the information we obtain is subject to interpretation (or ‘twisting’) since it is, by necessity, ambiguous (some lawyer have been accused of using this as a strategy). So, although professing to get at ‘the truth’ in reality what is obtained is some prejudiced and vague reflection of the truth. The further we get from a specific incident and the closer we get to trying to understand the ‘essence’ of someone’s situation the greater this problem. This problem is heightened if we apply predetermined questions.
A good example of this are the application forms the Canada Immigration requires the person to fill in (accurately, truthfully and completely). By the very nature of forms they are a predetermined set of questions which they have decided will get to the essence of the issue (spousal sponsorship, say). In my experience it is very seldom that by answering them one gets an understanding of the essence of the relationship and the persons’ circumstance. Further, it doesn’t matter what list of questions they put in the application forms this will be the case - to a greater or lesser degree (fortunately for me, since it gives me a job). When I am interviewing someone I must also keep in mind the cultural aspect.
A list of predetermined questions immediately restricts the information gathering by the Western bias that experience must be ‘objective’, ‘chronological’ and obey the logical rules implied with the assumption of ‘causality’ (cause and effect). There is also the underlying belief, very Western in my opinion, that information obtained in such a manner is correct (keep in mind that in Mediaeval times Westerners operated under the belief that answers obtained thru torture were correct and that trial by ordeal was a legitimate manner of getting at the truth - it is interesting to note that this lead to the development of the institution of lawyers).
Very early in my career doing refugee claims I determined the importance of my Western bias and its potential for restricting my ability to learn the essence of the situation. On the other hand, if we want to get the essence of a circumstance or a person asking questions can be useful and even necessary. But, its restricting influence may be reduced allowing us to come to a more useful ‘world view’ by not approaching it with a predetermined set of questions.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, January, 2005
posted by wlloydm at
9:41 AM
<< Home