Monthly Archives: February 2014

The rider and the elephant

February 6, 2014Ethics, Middle Way Philosophy, Philosophy, Psychologycognitive biases, ethics, Jonathan Haidt, rationalityRobert M Ellis

Can we actually change our moral responses? Much debate about moral issues is fruitless because, however well-justified the reasons given for one position or another, they make no difference to our position. Rather than changing our position in response to strong evidence or argument seen overall, we tend to focus on minor weaknesses in views we intuitively oppose (or minor strengths in views we support) and blow them out of proportion. I’ve recently been reading Jonathan Haidt, who encapsulates this situation in the image of the rider and the elephant. The rider thinks he’s in charge, but most of the time he’s just pretending to direct an elephant that is going where it wants to go. He gives lots of psychological evidence for the extent to which we rationalise things we’ve already judged, rather than making decisions on the basis of reasoning. This is the whole field of cognitive bias. For example, people experiencing a bad smell are more likely to make negative judgements, and judges grant fewer parole applications when they’re tired in the afternoon than they do when they’re fresh in the morning.

However, too many people draw a cheap moral determinism out of this. That’s a determinism expressed by Hume in his famous line “reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” Fortunately Haidt, who’s a professor of moral psychology at the University of Virginia, recognises that Hume’s position is over-stated, and that it is based on a simplistic false dichotomy between reason and emotion. Just because the rider tends to over-estimate his influence on the elephant, doesn’t mean he has no influence at all. Rather, someone controlling a beast with as much bulk and momentum as an elephant needs to develop skills to encourage it in one direction rather than another, and to set up the conditions that will encourage it to go one way rather than another rather than just telling it and expecting it to obey instantaneously. Nor are the rider and the elephant to be equated to “reason” and “emotion”: each uses reasoning, and each has motives and starting points for reasoning, making a complex mixture of the two in both rider and elephant. The elephant would be better described as an elephant of intuition and the rider as conscious awareness.

Haidt, like most scientific or academic commentators on this kind of issue, also makes certain questionable assumptions. One of these is that of the essential unity of the rider and of the elephant (particularly the elephant). If it was true that the elephant definitely wanted to do one thing, and the rider another, it would be pretty much impossible to steer the elephant in any sense. But this is an over-simplification of the physical intuitions we get from our bodies. We may intuitively judge one way, but there is also an intuitive sympathy to some extent for the opposing approach. Perhaps we should not think of the rider so much as astride one elephant, as leading a herd of them. To lead the herd you find the elephant who is pre-disposed to act in the most objective way, encourage it, and (because elephants are herd animals) the rest are likely to follow.

That’s where integrative practice comes in. In the over-specialised world of academia, it seems to often to be the case that those engaged in crucial and ground-breaking research in psychology (such as, say, Daniel Kahneman and Jonathan Haidt) have evidently never experienced meditation, and completely ignore the potential of meditation and of other integrative practices to modify our responses. There are, of course, other academics investigating meditation, but these usually show little interest in ethics or judgement. Cheap determinism seems to rule, for the most part, because over-specialised people don’t join up the evidence in different quarters, and the incentive system could hardly be better geared to discourage synthetic thinking.

In meditation, one can become more aware of that variety of possible responses. Meditation is, in effect, a close scrutiny of the elephant on the part of the rider, from a sympathetic inside viewpoint. The better he knows the elephant, the more he can skilfully manage it. He can rein in the elephant a little so it has more time to listen to the other members of the herd. He can make it more aware of ambiguity using humour, art or poetry. He can give the elephant a wider range of options by educating its sensibility. He can help the elephant become more aware of the rider, and cultivate its sympathy for the rider.

That doesn’t mean that the elephant will ever cease to go where it wants to go. The question is just what it means to ‘want’. Wanting is never simple. We have lots of wants, and it is the integration of those wants that helps us steer the elephant in a more acceptable direction – indeed that helps us see what that better direction is. The rider really needs the elephant, and no merely abstract morality can be justified that does not take that elephant into account.

Picture: Rider and elephant by Dennis Jarvis (Wikimedia Commons)

Meditation 4: Meditate till the neighbours complain….

February 5, 2014Ethics, Meditation, Middle Way Philosophy, PracticePeter Goble

“You migglers seem a rowdy crowd!
You argue, cuss, and laugh out loud,
You seldom chant or bend a knee

Before a gilded effigy!”

Thus begins the three stanza jingle I composed as part of a joint poetry spree with other participants at an early stage in the development of the society. Although I experienced the ‘spree’ as fun, I had an inkling that it was also a serious exercise, intended as a marker for the direction of Middle Way Philosophy as real-life practice, rather than as a distraction from real life (as traditional Buddhism sometimes seemed); or as an intellectual take on life without actually engaging with it, as some Buddhist writers and teachers convey.

Writing of poetry as an integrative tool, Robert M Ellis* suggests that to write it is the best way to use it, especially if the writer can delight in her creation, which she produces for its own sake, and perhaps for the sake of others, acknowledging her imperfect motivations in doing so. My own motives are still under examination, and as I read and re-read the words I strung together then with pleasure and a real sense of accomplishment and pride, they are beginning to reveal more layers of meaning than I might have imagined at the outset, and a presentiment of more to come. Not all my notions are comfortable ones.

In developing the verses I envisioned and my lines suggested a slightly taken-aback observer of a group of migglers, plucking up courage to be forthright in his opinion of what they were about, speaking to them directly, and with a hint of rebuke. “A rowdy crowd”, seemingly. At least that leaves room for a counter-argument, but not much. The evidence in support of that judgement? People arguing, ‘cussing’ and laughing out loud. Immoderate and uproarious, in other words. Irreverent too, and individualistic to the point of being “bolshie”. Perhaps untroubled by the idea of breaching etiquette, or even of giving offence.

One can see plainly that in this verse I am setting out my own stall, or planting my own flag on the small mound of migglism, and that the poem is a rallying cry, summoning allies to my cause: to dissent, to discrepancy, to contrariness, to cussedness, to iconoclasm, and even to ridicule, or at least to the ridiculous, the absurd, and the plain silly. For some of these give me delight, and I enjoy the sense of delight that comes with the freedom to dissent, to be silly, and I love to share my delight with others, and have them share theirs with me, and with their others. Which you do!

In my several years of association with Buddhism, and my contact with Buddhists, it hasn’t been my experience that delight has figured at all strongly, and possibly not at all. On the contrary, there’s been hardly any fun in it, let alone delight, and my overall impression has been of unremitting dreariness, with an apparent striving after piety, contrived seriousness, and apologetic self-effacement. Some of this may well be authentic, but it gets lost (or so it seems to me) in an ocean of other-worldliness, with a fierce competitive edge (like a basking shark). Do you know any really funny Buddhist jokes?

I’ve always wondered why meditation has been so drearily characterised in the literature, and by some teachers. On the occasions when I wonder if I’m taking an extreme view, I recall an incident in a meditation hall when I witnessed a senior monk roughly push a meditating novice off his cushion because he was sitting so close the senior’s exalted seat that it incommoded the latter’s stately progress, hands folded and eyes downcast, towards it.

I think I understand meditation to be an important ‘limb’ of the three-limbed practice that Middle Way Philosophy proposes, a practice conducive to the incremental integration of desire, meaning and belief, and a means to dogma-free, non-authoritarian, and ethical life. And I conceive of the possibility of – and maybe the necessity for – a wide range of meditative practices in which freedom, creativity, enjoyment, non-conformity, fun, delight and ecstasy are vital constituents; and can be happily shared, experimented with, joked about, laughed at, and giggled over. Practices that bring a flush to the cheeks, a glow to the eyes, a smile to the face and beyond it, and even an occasional complaint from the neighbours.

I’m going to make my this starting point, and I want to enlist others to the cause. So how about it? All together now!

* Ellis R M (2013) Middle Way Philosophy 3: The Integration of Meaning, Lulu (Publisher) Carolina, USA.

Science and the Middle Way (An Objective Model)

February 4, 2014ScienceMiddle Way, Science, scientific methodRichard Flanagan

“We especially need imagination in science. It is not all mathematics, nor all logic, but is somewhat beauty and poetry.” Maria Mitchell, astronomer, first female member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences (quote and picture from Geozilla)

Science has a problem. For all it’s wonderful, bewildering and sometimes terrifying discoveries (discoveries that have shaped the world that we live in, as nothing before has) science is treated with contempt and mistrust while at the same time (and often from the same source) being worshipped as the miraculous and supremely authoritative fruits of superhuman individuals – ruthless rationalists, seemingly void of normal human responses. There are countless examples of this, from the MMR scandal and the climate change debate to the seemingly daily claims of cancer cures that adorn the front pages of our favourite tabloids (one would be forgiven for wondering how it is possible that anybody could even develop cancer any more)! My suspicion is that the problem is borne and perpetuated throughout society, from schools and media to the scientific community itself.

I am not a scientist, most of my understanding of science comes from reading populist science books and so I offer no authority on the nuances of the scientific method. My intention here is not to suggest possible alternatives to any part of the scientific process, suffice to say there are many dissenting voices and my guess is that any major shift will come – as it has in the past – from within the community itself. What I will attempt here is to explore the perception of science, as it is presented and understood by what I believe is a large proportion of the population, whilst simultaneously suggesting a more objective (in the Middle Way sense of the word) model, that I hope will avoid dogma, still allow and possibly assist – science to continue doing what it does best.

I have broken the process of science into five incremental stages, which can be put into three distinct groups of differing levels of public perception. As can be seen in the diagram provided, the stages (which are numbered 1 – 5) form a triangle which rises up through the levels of perception (lettered a, b, c).

Level-a:

This level contains the first stages of the scientific process, which are rarely publicized and are little understood by much of the public (Michael Brooks claims that this is how many scientists wish it to remain).

Stage 1 – People

Science, like art, begins with human beings, and scientists, like artists, are not only capable of wondrous creative leaps but also of jealousy, dishonesty, romance, delusion, dogma and the whole spectrum of human vices and virtues. Yet the public perception of scientists seems to be of robot like boffin’s, working together with ruthless rationality and poise. While science appears to maintain a dogmatic status-quo that is beyond challenge, individual scientist must be as competitive and ambitious as the rest of society. While the established order jealously guard their hard won theories, the young upstarts must surely be desperate to instigate revolution. These revolutions do happen, but they are rare and require exceptional creativity. Relativity, The Big Bang Theory and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle all turned contemporary scientific thought upside down – their instigators all challenged the institution, and won. To the scientist that proves that the speed of light is not the universal speed limit – a Nobel prize, world fame and the drinks are on you!

It is easy to stereotype scientists in the way that I have described above, or indeed as wild haired genius’s, but the reality must surely be more balanced. Scientists come in all flavours which means that they can hold differing philosophies and have conflicting religious beliefs, enabling them to tackle problems from alternative points of view – which can only have a positive effect on the process of scientific endeavour.

Stage 2 – Enquiry/ Discovery

Much of this has been covered above, although not all scientific enquiry can result in the revision of commonly held thought. Most of it is likely to be relatively mundane and most of it is also likely to be unsuccessful – in that results will be negative. Nevertheless, it is at this stage that individuals and groups can really let their creativity and imagination go wild and this is where the maverick has a chance to shine. It is worthy of note that the three theories that I cite above, most likely started life as ‘wacky’ ideas that were rejected by much the scientific community. The majority of fringe hypotheses and unconventional theories are likely to fail, but their exploration should still be encouraged. It is from here that the next major advancement is likely to come.

Level – b:

It is this level that I believe is the most visible, and it is these stages that many people seem to regard as ‘science’. Again, Michael Brooks argues that many scientists want it to stay that way.

Stage 3 – Established Theories

This stage really represents the current scientific thought of any given time. It is this thought that is often presented, in schools, the media and elsewhere, as unquestionable fact (which is actually stage 5). In the scientific sense this is where the facts are, but this word causes problems and is misused by scientists as well as non-scientists. The word ‘fact’ in this context should always be accompanied by a ‘with our current understanding’, which in most cases it (sometimes silently) is – even if it is only lip service, paid by a seemingly dogmatic individual.

That there can never be any fact that is 100% validated is a reality that is often exploited by those that wish to challenge current scientific thinking, and this can have serious consequences. Climate change is a good example. When ever a scientist makes a prediction, there is always an element of doubt, and sometimes these predictions prove to be wrong or inaccurate. From a scientific point of view this is fine, but this inherent uncertainty enables those that have conflicting agendas to exaggerate the margin of error to devastating effect. The same tactics are also employed in the creation/ evolution debate.

While it seems to me that stages 2 & 3 must directly inform each other (in a kind of feedback loop), it is important that they remain separate in terms of advancement to level 4. Challenges to any scientific theory should be encouraged, but those challenges that determine or alter the application of science, without the appropriate evidence must be treated with caution.

Stage 4 – Application

This is where established theory is employed for practical purposes. Our whole society can seem like it is the result of stage 4. There are bridges, aeroplanes, computers, electricity, medicines, films, recorded music – the list is endless. For many, this is science; putting a man on the moon and microchips – but this is only the result of a long, and (despite my simplification) complex process. Many people expect science to be useful, and it often is, but that is missing the point. Science should come from a curiosity of the universe that we live in. Many theories never have a practical application, or at least don’t during the lifetimes of those that discover them, and that is fine.

Stage 4, although often the accumulation of the stages that precede, is no more important and a scientific journey should not always be expected to arrive at this destination – even though it can obviously be worth it when it does. Additionally, It should be noted that not every application of scientific discovery is always desirable!

Level – c:

Although this level can never be reached, claims are sometimes made, or misunderstood to have been made that would fit here, and for some this is where science already resides. This level can often be confused with, or thought to be a part of, level – b.

Stage 5 – Absolute/ Unquestionable Claims

Stage 5 represents the logical conclusion of any scientific exercise, which is to fully understand the universe, even though this aim is unachievable. While it is regarded as an unattainable ideal, of which the journey towards is worthy in itself, it can be useful as a point of focus. Nonetheless, it can be problematic, especially where it is claimed that a final and unquestionable truth exists. I would suggest that in many cases, where it appears there is a claim that would be at home in stage 5, there has actually been a misunderstanding that has resulted from the language used to describe claims in stage 3. The speed of light is a good example of this.

One can often hear scientists saying that it is impossible for anything in the universe to exceed the speed of light, and this sounds very much like an absolute claim. At school it is taught as such and the media treat it as such, they are mistakenly presenting it as a stage 5 claim. However, when a scientist makes this claim there is, in most cases, the additional ‘given our current understanding’ and ‘if you are suggesting otherwise then show me the evidence’, the problem is that these are usually presumed, and therefore unspoken statements.

As human beings, there are undoubtedly individual scientists that believe that some of the claims of science have reached stage 5, but as long as science in general does not then I do not see this as much of an issue. Some scientists also believe in God while others don’t – which similarly does not cause me concern.

From the perspective of the Middle Way I think that it is important to view science as a whole, which along with the arts and philosophy forms part of an even greater whole. I think that when one places too much focus on any individual stage then misunderstanding will arise and science will suffer. The only stage that I am unsure of is number 5, for me it is fine as a motivating but unobtainable goal, but I suspect that others might differ in this.

Level – c (stage 5) aside, the current trend of focusing mainly on level – b should be disregarded, and I would like to see levels a and b combined, which a Middle Way perspective should achieve with little effort. Of course for the early stages to be better understood they need to be much more visible, and this will ultimately come down to the efforts of the education system, the media and the scientists themselves.

This is clearly a simplified model. In reality there is much overlap between the stages and the order is not set in stone – as I mentioned above there is an obvious feedback loop in effect between levels 2 and 3. I have also negated to mention the ethics of science, which is already an ongoing debate. Some seem to believe that ethics only exist in the application of science, but I would suggest that the reality is much more complex. Ethical considerations, in varying forms (owing to stage 1), seem likely to exist and to play an active role at every stage of the process – perhaps this is something that the Middle Way Society can explore in greater detail at a later time.

There are bound to be errors here, both in my understanding of science and my application of the Middle Way to it , and I accept that I may have missed my target. As yet I have not discussed or shown these ideas to anybody but I hope that, if they are not as complete as they seem to me at the time of writing, they might still form part of a wider discussion about how the Middle Way Society might approach science and scientific issues in the future.

Critical Thinking 5: Ambiguity

February 2, 2014Critical Thinkingambiguity, vaguenessRobert M Ellis

Arguments are, of course, made out of language, and language is always ambiguous to some extent. If you apply the embodied meaning understanding of the meaning of language, there can never be any precise equivalence between the meaning of a word, sentence or other symbol for any two people. Each understands that meaning in relation to their own body. We do manage to communicate, but only on a more-or-less basis. If your language means something similar enough to you and to your audience, you will communicate to an extent. The same problem applies between you and your past or future self. The words you wrote in your diary ten years ago may not mean the same now.

However, issues of ambiguity are more striking in some cases than others, and where they arise more strongly in argument they are more likely to create misunderstandings and conflicts. There are two types of problematic ambiguity: ambiguity proper, which is multiple meanings for the same word or term, and vagueness, which is the lack of clear boundaries on the application of a term.

Very often, but not always, ambiguities and vagueness are just resolved by contextual judgement. For example, if I say “I’m going to the bank” and I’m carrying a chequebook, you don’t think I’m going to sit by the side of a river; and if I’m carrying a picnic basket, you don’t tend to think I’m going to have a relaxed picnic inside my local branch of HBOS. Vagueness also often does not matter: if I tell you I’m going for “a short walk”, you don’t need to know exactly how many metres I will be walking – and indeed, nor do I.

Ambiguity that affects the justification of an argument is known as equivocation. If you use the same term in a reason and a conclusion, but don’t realise that they have an importantly different meaning in each case, the justification of your conclusion is likely to be seriously undermined. Abstract words are most prone to this: for example, life, civilised, natural, beautiful, meaning, good, art, and (oddly enough) logical. Equivocal arguments often have a baggy abstract term in the middle of them that is in need of a bit of clarification, and if it’s not clarified needless disputes can ensue. Here’s an example of a dispute between Ken and Thelma:

Ken: Wind turbines are a natural way of generating energy without burning fossil fuel, so the government should be investing in them much faster.

Thelma: Natural! You’ve got to be joking! They’re the most artificial monstrosities you ever saw! A blot on the landscape!

Here Ken is using the idea of the “naturalness” of wind turbines as the basis of his argument for them, but “natural” obviously means something quite different to Thelma. They will not be able to make progress in resolving their disagreement until they have resolved what they mean by this deeply ambiguous word. They can do this by defining what each means by the term. Let’s imagine that the conversation continues in a helpful direction.

Ken: So what do you mean by “natural”, there, Josh? Is it to do with what wind turbines look like?

Thelma: Of course! It can’t be natural if it’s a big noisy metal contraption sticking up on a green hill, can it?

Ken: So “natural” means not noisy and metal? What does it mean more positively?

Thelma: In harmony with the landscape. Trees and pastures are natural, but wind turbines aren’t.

Ken: What about buildings? Are they natural?

Thelma: Most of them aren’t, but the more traditional buildings like stone barns are more natural-looking than modern buildings.

Ken: So, by “natural” you mean that it has an appearance that you feel blends harmoniously with the landscape?

Thelma: That’s right.

Ken: Well, that’s not what I meant when I said that wind turbines are a natural way of generating energy. I meant that they are sustainable and don’t cause pollution. They cause much less disruption to the eco-system as a whole when you compare them to a coal-fired power station, for example.

Whether or not Ken and Thelma can now resolve their disagreement about wind turbines, at least now they have clarified what they are arguing about.

Exercise

Identify the ambiguous term or terms in each of these examples, and clarify the likely meanings of it for each person.

1. Jake (looking at object pictured on right in an art gallery): How can that be art? This guy has just bought a urinal and stuck it in an art gallery!

Sandip: That’s precisely it. He’s stuck it in an art gallery. That makes it art.

2. Mother: I thought you were going to go to bed early tonight! It’s 11.30 already!

Teenaged son: But I went to bed at 12.30 last night.

3. Unionist: The management’s pay offer is only a 0.8% increase on last year’s pay, when the inflation rate is 2.3%. Some other workers in the same group are getting 2.7% rises. That makes the offer both unfair and unreasonable.

Manager: The pay offer is in line with the going market rate in the industry. That makes it perfectly fair. It is all that the company can afford without threatening its competitiveness. It would not be reasonable to expect the company to go out of business to meet an excessive pay settlement.

4. Camilla: The Quakers are not really Christians. They don’t believe in the Trinity, or that the Bible is the Word of God.

Billy: But they have an idea of God, and they come from the Christian tradition. They rely on personal experience of God rather than on the Bible or doctrines, that’s all.

5. Rosie: Your directions were rubbish! You said to go straight ahead by the Dog and Duck Inn, but there isn’t any road straight ahead at the Dog and Duck Inn, just left and right. I didn’t know which way to go! I was wandering around for ages!

Lee: The directions were perfectly clear. You just have to interpret them with common sense, that’s all! There’s a staggered junction by the Dog and Duck Inn, which means you go left and then right, but that’s practically the same as straight ahead. It should have been obvious!