Developing a Prudent Society Earl Hautala Preface Korzybski's writings assume educated readers who need to know about science, especially as it applies to basic atomic theory. Readers need to know about Aristotlian logic, as developed by the Scholastics over the centuries before the Renaissance. Korzybski's writing makes more sense when the reader understands the positions adopted by Abelard, Ockham, and Duns Scotus. Often understanding the intent and import of one idea requires integration with ideas from other sources. This essay resulted from my interpretation of a statement in Science and Sanity. "...I reject Aristotle's assumed structure, usually called 'metaphysics'(circa 350 B.C.) and accept modern science (1933) as my 'metaphysics'." (Page 92, 2nd Edition[1941]) Air-conditioned Probability Seminars The bright lights of Nevada's casino cities spring out of the desert's darkness, attracting tourists and others who have money to risk, like moths to a flame. Some imprudent moths get singed and a few get severely burned. These air-conditioned architectural wonders did not just spring from the desert sands, nor did they rise to support the trade in desert agricultural crops. These casinos sprang up and cities grew around them because enterpreneurs pursued a profit making venture, that of allowing people to gamble legally. A knowledge of the games of chance reveals that the house always has a little edge. When you play any casino game, you bet against the house. Any study of the results of such bets indicates that for the vast majority of participants, players lose and the house wins. Enterpreneurs pay for these magnificent casinos by using the money lost by those who believe that this time, they might get lucky. If you don't play at a casino, how about the lottery? Bob Steiner, CPA, author, lecturer, magician and skeptic lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. He knows more than I do about the odds on the lottery. Does a prudent person play? No, the odds of winning the lottery make it an incredibly poor bet compared to playing craps at a legal casino, where probablility indicates that every player, over the long haul, will lose. Instead of betting a dollar a week on the lottery, a prudent risk taker would fare better by regularly putting money into a savings account. When the stake grows to sufficient size, the prudent investor will consider moving those assests into a mutual fund to appreciate more rapidly while diversifying the risk. The money remains at risk, but one that records show has consistently paid greater dividends to more investors, than any other kind of wager. The actions we take to stay alive engender some risks. The air you breathe contains measurable contaminants which could affect your health. If you elect to continue breathing unfiltered air, you accept a calculated risk. Staying alive becomes an exercise in assessing and choosing between probabilities when we lack certainty. A prudent person avoids unwarranted risk. By cooperating, prudent people can (probably) build a a better society, but it will require some changes, both in attitude and in action. Aw, What do You Know? A clear understanding of the games of chance provides prudent counsel for the potential gambler. A knowledge of probability enables the gambler to develop an appreciation for opportunity in the presence of risk. Knowledge in its broadest sense, consists of understanding the relationships between things. If you must put your life at risk just to continue living (and it appears that we do), what kind of knowledge do you need? You need a knowledge of things and how they relate (or don't relate) to one another. Traditionally, we refer to the study of knowledge as epistemology. We call the branch of knowledge concerned with material things, physics. Physics, in the sense of determining how objects relate to one another, got off to a rolling start. Unable to measure freely falling bodies accurately, Galileo rolled balls down an inclined plane to approximate the paths taken by falling bodies. Years later, one of Galileo's students used many of the same procedures to study the variables altering the flight (and explosive impact) of cannonballs. Since those early days, the study of physics has expanded from an investigation falling bodies and explosions, to steam power, internal combustion engines, electrical power and nuclear power. While the study of physics has not brought about the millennium or the answered every question about relationships and probabilities, it has given some individuals greater leisure to study some of the perplexing problems associated with continued human existence in relative comfort and security. For me, that means that the house stays warm on cold winter nights and that when I get up in the morning, I can brew a hot cup of coffee by flicking a switch. We live in relative comfort because the generations after Galileo have studied physics and discovered more useful material relationships. Physical Facts First The study of physics tells us something about the structure of the universe. It allows us to make inferences about what we cannot perceive directly. Where instruments cannot probe, we build mathematical models to produce abstract outlines of what we perceive as effects. We seek to divide matter into its ultimate parts. Matter has properties. Energy affects matter. Einstein discovered the equivalence of matter and energy (E = Mc^2). Physicists may refer to objects in terms of matter-energy. We determine the properties of matter in terms of the effects of energy on matter to discover relationships. Some of them seem ordinary. We see red roses because light (energy) reflects from specific molecules (matter) within the rose. We hear music because sound waves (energy) travel from vibrating instrument parts (matter) to our ears. We sense only certain kinds of things, the kind that make changes in our nervous systems. Still others we only imagine. Generalizing: 1) We sense things, objects (events in process) as the result of matter-energy interactions occurring outside our skins. 2) Alternatively, we can have sensory experiences that relate to matter-energy interactions inside our skins. 3) We can have experiences that come from the inherent noise of the nervous system amplified by "feedback loops." Experiences of the first kind we call [no bold] public or objective. I see that rose; you see that rose. Experiences of the second kind we call private or subjective. I stuck myself with a thorn from the rose. You cannot feel my pain, but you "know" what it feels like. [We know that some people have reproducible subjective experiences because of their own peculiar neural "wiring."] Experiences of the third kind we might call hallucinations. No, George, I can't see any snakes under the bed. Every public (objective) experience has a material component, or at least we find a material candidate to relate to every public phenomenon. Q. Did you hear that noise? A. Yeah, the wind blew the screen door shut. We can make inferences on the basis of empathy to account for subjective experiences. I know how it feels to have a toothache. I remember the time ... We have problems associated with unshared private experiences reported by other parties. No, George, I still cannot see any snakes under the bed. Reports About Ordinary Experiences By way of example we can examine experiences of all three kinds in daily life. I'll light a candle, so as not to curse the dark. Given the burning candle, you and I can agree that we see it. That constitutes a public experience, an experience of the first kind. If I put my fingers too close to the flame and yell, "Ouch" or worse, you will understand empathetically even though you do not feel my subjective pain. I will have had a subjective experience, an experience of the second kind. Either you have had or can have similar experiences of the second kind. We can understand these two kinds of experiences by careful analysis and exploration. The actions, the efforts, and the muscles of people can and do affect matter. There we find a suitable dividing line for acting on ideas and beliefs. I propose that the members of a society, any society, evaluate each and every idea on the basis of its proven potential to make material changes. Let me give you a dramatic example to illustrate what I mean. You start home from the library. Darkness has fallen and you have a block to walk. Suddenly, out of the darkness a figure appears and says: "I have a gun and I will shoot you if you don't give me your money." We want to try now to evaluate each idea or belief on the basis of its proven potential to make material changes. I assert that simple acts of evaluation will lead to a more prudent society. This example requires some understanding of the physical matter-energy possibilities. Does this stranger "really" have a gun? My answer: Who cares? I know something about guns. They exist. They make loud noises and emit bullets at dangerous velocities. Bullets make dramatic violent, life-threatening material changes when they strike people. The fellow in front of you says he has a gun. Some people get robbed of their money every day. A lesser number get shot, and a few die. Do you want to take the chance that this person is running a bluff? (Look at the situation prudently. Act on the basis of the best available knowledge. Estimate the probabilities associated with the proposed matter-energy relationships. It doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out.) My answer: No, not at all. If presented with this situation, I would (grudgingly) give this person my money, because if he "really" has a gun and he shoots me, I may not live long enough to expend another breath, let alone my meager finances. In doing so, I contemplate the material here-now and project the consequences of an irreversible act on his part. So some scientific knowledge may apply in making prudent choices about matter-energy relationships, projected in space-time. Reports About Experiences of the Third Kind Now we come to the perplexing problem of handling those assumptions derived from reported experience, unshared by others, and not experimentally verifiable. They involve something strange, energetic events which affect matter, without material antecedents. That sounds a great deal like an _ex nihilo_ effect. More than getting something for nothing, this involves creating something from nothing. We have no evidence for any such activity as an experience of the first kind. Not once in the long history of human verbal communication can we find one objective reproducible instance of an energetic event or an energy source totally unrelated to some material body. I don't know of any reproducible subjective experience resulting from an immaterial source. We have reports of such events in experiences of the third kind. Our society defines the persistent reporters of such events as legally incompetent. Philosophers have found such non-physical "entities" difficult to treat logically. I propose, in an attempt to proceed prudently, that we simply eliminate them from consideration. I refer to those ideas related to "metaphysics." {Query for PDJ & JK: Do we want to make the following bracketed paragraph a footnote?} [From the Greek meta, a prefix used to signify "among", "with", and/or "after." In English we use it to mean later, behind, and beyond. If we learn about physics through perception, we develop ideas about non-physical relationships in order to explain physics. These ideas (metaphorically) seem to stand behind or beyond our perceptions.] Never in the history of humanity have we shaken off the burden of belief in metaphysics. We have never found reproducible experiences of the first kind (objective) to support immaterial entities. With no evidence for immaterial entities we have little reason to expect to find any. This has always presented those who would like to plan for the future (prudent people) with some problems. Let me propose an alternative. I believe that every person deserves to have his or her ideas considered. Each person deserves the respect that we accord any human being, despite having beliefs different from those I hold. I would expect them to treat my ideas and beliefs in a similar manner. Ideas and beliefs do not alter matter, except inside the heads of thinkers and believers. Scientific tools and techniques cannot solve the problems associated with reports of experiences of the third kind. Scientists have the same problems which afflict people in other walks of life. They catch colds, suffer automobile accidents, and have (unnecessarily) heated disputes. Beginning with the work of Galileo, people engaged in scientific pursuits studied the kinds of things accessible to ordinary perception. Determining the velocity of a ball rolling down an inclined plane requires no arcane knowledge, no special gift of sight. Scientists (and therefore science) can only study and evaluate objective phenomena. Many people believe in some form of metaphysics. These people can and do affect matter as a result of any actions taken as a result of their beliefs. The bullets, shells, bombs and explosives expended in wars wreak havoc on both sides at the physical level, without respect to belief. I propose to look at the effects of metaphysical beliefs as they materially affect human affairs. You may have had communications with other people which suggest that they have a metaphysical orientation. Allow me to tell you about someone I met and talked to briefly. I went to a government facility on the first of November a few years ago, on a business transaction. Traditionally, the last day of October marks Halloween, once known as All Hallows' Eve. As a friendly conversational gesture I asked the person behind the counter, "Did you have lots of trick or treaters at your house last night?" I saw immediately that I had made a mistake! This man's visage changed remarkably. He glowered. He looked me straight in the eye and said: "We don't practise that kind of thing at our house. It promotes the Devil's work." Estimating the probabilites of an altercation, I pursued this line of conversation no farther. When you see someone driving erratically on the highway, it seems prudent to avoid a physical confrontation. Why change the rules when encountering a potentially erratic person? Scientists can only study reproducible experiences of the first and second kind. Any serious scientific investigation seeking a material entity identifiable as "the devil" cannot proceed. Investigators will find nothing to study! The devil lies in the region beyond physics, in a hypothetical universe of metaphysics. Scientists who ask questions may confront barriers of belief. Over the course of centuries, some believers have come to see scientists and science as an enemy, perhaps even as The Enemy. A polarization has occurred between those who promote science and those who oppose it. In keeping with the spirit of scientific inquiry, I propose to recognize anyone opposed to science as a worthy opponent. We can agree to disagree, amicably. Here we debate ideas. In keeping with the objectives of debate, to give others free rein to choose for themselves, I propose to refer to those who deny the prudence of science as "the loyal opposition to the teachings of science" (LOTS). Proponents of either side of the question bear the responsibility for actions taken as a result of what they believe. Until such time as we have reproducible evidence which requires additional consideration, I suggest that we attempt to solve practical problems, those which involve measurable material things. When we have problems, let's employ the well tested methods of science and scientific investigation to evaluate relationships which have probable material consequences. A More Nettlesome Problem The LOTS have for many years contended that no woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy. As a matter of record they claim that such an action, called abortion, is "wrong," "sinful," or "murder." A careful examination of the best available evidence suggests a scientific evaluation finds their claims improbable. To the charge of "murder," I must demur. This cannot become a legal issue in this society until the Supreme Court decides that every fertilized ovum constitutes a human being within the context of the law. Clearly, the LOTS do not say that abortion constitutes a criminal action. They maintain that it should constitute a criminal action. The legal termination of a pregnancy by a licensed physician does not qualify as "murder." To the charge of "sinful," I must demur. This cannot become a (ital) civil (ital) issue in this society until we rewrite the Constitution. The word "sin" applies to transgressions of religious or moral codes, not necessarily to legislated criminal or civil statutes. The charge of "sinful" as applied to abortion has no material consequences other than those intended. Applying a label of condemnation to does not change a material event. Perhaps this becomes clearer when seen in another context. What material consequences follow if I eat the flesh of a pig, proscribed by some belief systems. To the best of my knowledge, well-cooked pork will provide me with some nourishment. Materially, pork will follow the same digestive and metabolic fate as other ingested materials. I cannot predict any untoward material consequences. I have literally millions of examples of people eating pork (well-cooked mind you) without any disasterous physical consequences. Nothing magical or metaphysical happens as the result of labeling the eating of pork a sin. It seems that one individual's "sin" provides another's sustenance. We bear the responsibility for what we do, as a result of what we believe. To the charge "wrong", I need not demur. Members of the LOTS have no clear evidence to support any material consequences which must follow from doing things they consider "wrong" without justification. The LOTS must provide me with material consequences of an abortion which would warrant their labeling it "wrong." Using our hard won understanding of the operations of matter-energy I have evaluated two situations for their material consequences. The first, that of a person with a gun, has material consequences which I can appreciate. The man with the gun represents a material threat which can issue potentially lethal physical force with a small movement of a single finger. The second, the question of abortion, offers no material consequences other than those intended and agreed to, by both patient and physician. If an immaterial power source should suddenly and consistently begin to obliterate, demolish, or vaporize patients, doctors, and clinics, I will re-evaluate my position. Note that the activities of some members of the LOTS against patients, physicians and clinics represent only the same physical dangers as those presented by any armed criminal. Perceptions, Physics, and Probability Ultimately, the choice of prudent action relates to knowledge. The appeal to a higher authority as a potential justification for changing or resisting change has no base in the best available evidence. No one has a clear projection of the future. Look to "enlightened self-interest" as the guide to social conduct. As you seek to improve your lot, if you accord others the same opportunities as you reserve for yourself, we could begin to develop an equitable society, or at least we stand a good chance of improving this one. Why not take another look at what I would call the biggest gamble of all, Pascal's Wager. Pascal (wracked by disease, pain, and doubt) proposed a wager which has heartened LOTS for centuries. In a translation by W.F. Trotter, the Wager reads: "Let us weigh the gain and the loss in the wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is." (Great Books of the Western World, Volume 33.(Ital) Pensees(ital), Blaise Pascal, page 215. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952.) So ran the argument for enlightened self-interest in the 17th Century. Since then our understanding of physics has increased considerably. (ital)Au contraire(ital), Monseiur Pascal, for the prudent person of the 20th Century, unreasoned metaphysical belief costs the individual the most important aspect of humanity, the option of making a reasoned choice. We have learned how to evaluate some of our perceptions. We have learned something about physics. We can calculate simple probabilities. In spite of these advances in knowledge, we still fail to evaluate metaphysical claims on the merits of material evidence. This failure has enormous costs in the present and inescapable consequences in the future. Unreasoned belief plays a pivotal role in structuring today's world of human affairs. The greatest enemy of the status quo lies in the ability of people to think and act on the basis of scientific information. This argument suggests that we can choose our circumstances as rational material beings, but only if we accept the responsibility for our actions as individuals now, and understand that we must act to accept our responsibilities as a species, for the foreseeable future. As one example, the world population(1994) grows at an estimated 3 persons per second. In a prudent society, appeals to morals and ethics in the name of a metaphysical authority should have weight in our deliberations in proportion to its proven efficacy in the past. Bio: A retired research chemist, Earl's efforts to train his nervous system have led him to view process-events from a materially oriented perspective.