Entry 2313, on 2024-01-09 at 12:13:27 (Rating 2, Philosophy)
I think I have identified the fundamental difference between what I broadly categorise as "good" and "bad" in this world. I should say that these classifications shouldn't be taken too literally: there is some good in every bad, and some bad in very good. Also, I am using the words good and bad here more as a statement on effectiveness, rationality, and truth, rather than a way to state what is virtuous or evil.
What is (arguably) the most important defining characteristic of science? It is testing, accepting when something doesn't work, and refining existing ideas or even starting again with something completely new where necessary. To put it simply: science tests and corrects errors. When an error is found in an existing theory that discovery isn't hidden, it is celebrated (at least in an ideal form of science). As I have said in the past, if anyone found that a theory like evolution couldn't be true, and provided an alternative, that would be worth a Nobel Prize for sure!
But in other areas of human activity this process doesn't happen. Politicians rarely objectively test the outcomes of their policies, because they might get a result they don't like. The arts are often not even about generating facts, so they have nothing to test. Many social "sciences" (I always use quotes in this situation, because I don't really believe they are sciences) do no testing and tend to create ideological pronouncements rather than testable facts. And is there even a need for me to mention religion here?
The most disturbing area, to me, where this lack of testing occurs is in philosophy. Now, I have to admit here that I have no formal training in philosophy, so if I have got this horribly wrong please say so in the comments, but it seems that most philosophy involves ideas based on pure thought, and no formal testing to see if the consequences of those ideas are apparent in the real world.
I should say here that not all areas of inquiry can be tested this way. For example, in the study of moral philosophy, it is hard to see how any testing could be done. You might evaluate the real world benefits of a moral model but by doing that you have almost already committed to one of them, consequentialism, so this might quite fairly be seen as invalid.
So I freely accept that not everything can be effectively tested, but maybe we should try to do it more. For example, in the social "sciences" make a prediction of what the consequences of an idea might be, then that should be tested. In politics, state what a positive outcome would be for a policy, and test it at a fixed time in the future and admit it is a failure if the objectives haven't been met.
I think this concept of testing could be applied a lot more than it is currently, and I think it might potentially produce better outcomes in many areas of modern society. After all, why shouldn't people need to defend their beliefs, especially when those beliefs have consequences for everyone, like in the area of politics or management?
Create a theory, test it, revise it, repeat. It's not a bad idea to arrive at the best outcomes, but it would require a change in mindset for some people: they woud need to want to get to the truth, instead of just sticking to their favourite pet ideology. It might be a big ask for some!
There are no comments for this entry.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE
