Position Paper #3 (g.s. according to eh) The Isolated Observer If you know the fable about "The Blind Men and the Elephant" (1) or you have read the delightful children's book, "It Looks Like This", what follows will not come as much of an insight. Let me build another possible version which extends the analogy and opens the door to a more complex analysis of the situation of diparate observations by different observers. Imagine a straight section of railroad track on which run regularly scheduled trains. People live along the track. Albert lives at point A, 200 meters from Beverly who lives at point B. Beverly lives 200 meters from Charlie who lives at point C. All trains bound for Deltaville blow their whistles at a point about 100 meters from point B and continue to sound them to about 100 meters past point B. {*} [[It might be useful to include a diagram here for those who more easily grasp visual information.]] Albert reports that train whistles always decrease in pitch. Albert had some friends over to listen to the sound of the train whistle. They made reasonably similar observations. Beverly reports that train whistles always increase in pitch until they reach her house (at point B), then they decrease in pitch. Beverly's bridge group agreed with her observation and each of them heard something they said they would describe in similar terms. Charlie reports that all train whistles increase in pitch. Charlie's neighbor who comes over to play cribbage, agrees with Charlie's assessment. The train's Engineer reports that the whistle always sounds a constant pitch. The engineers agree about the pitch of train whistles when they get together in the roundhouse. At first analysis, these people have dramatically different observations about the sounds train whistles make. Focus your attention on the word "observations" because these people represent ISOLATED observers. By analogy, their disagreement accounts for the vast majority of honest misunderstandings in the world of human affairs. Their isolation comes from the source of their observations, their individual nervous systems. Each of us depends upon an individual nervous system to inform us about whatever-goes-on outside our skins. For this situation we can begin to solve the problems of isolated observation by getting Albert, Beverly, Charlie and the Engineer together at Albert's place as a train bound for Deltaville goes by and blows its whistle. Under these circumstances the observers can agree that they hear the pitch of the whistle decrease from that location. We quickly determine that these (still isolated) observers have highly similar nervous systems. By the time they finish hearing the whistle at each of the locations, they will come much closer to agreeing about what they observe. Now their observations differ as a function of the observers relative to various locations. Now we need an explanation which encompasses both observations and observers. Each observer continues to live (to stay intact) because of an operating nervous system. Each of us depends upon our own because we have no other immediate means of getting information about whatever-goes-on. A few years of positive and negative feedback and individuals begin to assume that information from the nervous system accurately represents the physical situation. [This has to do with chocolate cakes as good to eat and hitting one's thumb with a hammer. Our nervous systems give us positive and negative feedback about our actions. Hitting your thumb with a hammer represents a case of negative feedback. I don't know any people who willingly bang their thumbs just for the sensation evoked.] Our assumptions work out well for the most part, except when we begin to disagree with the owners of other isolated nervous systems. We can resolve the problem of observed train whistle pitch by finding the conditions necessary to resolve, to every observer's satisfaction, the validity of these different observations. One method involves physics, the study of matter-energy in space-time. We have developed a symbolic physical reference framework which encompasses an area greater than that experienced by isolated observers. This framework predicts different observations for isolated observers relative to their position in that system. Understanding this explanation requires considering a different worldview. Each person will have a different worldview, but we can work at bringing them into closer correspondence. Ultimately because of the variations in individual nervous systems, we will have to settle for "close enough", because we just don't have the time or vocabulary to determine how little we disagree. It takes time and (seemingly) interminable experimentation to understand how the world fits together when seen (or heard) from different vantage points. The process has gone on for a few centuries, so others have done parts of it for us. History credits Pierre Gassendi with the first attempts to measure the velocity of sound in the 17th Century. By observation, sound moves (in air) from one stationary point to another at just under 400 m/second. Trains can travel at 30m/second. The Engineer running the train stays relatively stationary, with respect to the whistle, no matter how fast the train goes. He hears the whistle sound at a uniform pitch. What will an observer hear when the whistle moves away at 30m/second? The velocity of sound remains constant for the surrounding air system. The velocity of the train whistle adds to the distance the sound must travel before reaching a stationary observer by 30 m/second. That stretches the sound out, which lowers the observed pitch of the whistle for all stationary observers behind the departing train. Albert hears a decending whistle note from the receding train. The others will observe whistle pitches consistent with their reports as a function of their relationship to the moving train. A physicist explained the observed phenomenon, which now bears his name for easy reference, the Doppler effect. (An encyclopedia will give any interested reader more than the desired information about the other variables related to sound transmission and reception.) >From the Doppler effect we can explain each of the individual observations relative to a symbolic reference framework. If observers subscribe to this explanation, they escape isolation and enter a community of broader concensus based on reproducible evidence. The arguments and misunderstandings disappear through concensus! The observers sensations do not change, but their assumptions and interpretations of those sensations (i.e., their perceptions) can. In the past people have built different isolated reference frameworks from "sense data." Doppler used the same raw materials to construct a symbolic reference framework to account for sound frequencies relative to the motions of sound sources and observers. By analogy, science works to build different kinds of symbolic reference frameworks to achieve concensus. Scientific frameworks establish relationships between isolated observers to allow a reasoned concensus. A wider and more accurate framework may assist in resolving disputes, if all parties agree to consider another framework which preserves their observations and allows other observers to do the same. This solution suggests that isolated observations may not allow the resolution of disputes. Those who maintain an isolated reference framework may continue to oppose scientific frameworks and avoid concensus. The Doppler effect analogy resolves the sense data problem as did Aesop's fable and "It Looks Like This." A scientific solution becomes more complex and yields (potentially) more benefits. This reference framework allows other people to predict the sense data of observers as a function of physics. We can call the method of dealing with physics first, science. We can call the resulting shift in assumptions and interpretations - a worldview. General semantics provides some tools designed to promote a broader understanding of observations, to create symbolic reference frameworks of broader scope, for those who have an interest in achieving a reasoned concensus. {*} My thanks to Craig Presson and John McPherson for adding their corrections and additions to this effort. (I didn't put in a a diagram to assist readers, lacking both esthetic and artistic skills.) Additional corrections or better formulations gladly accepted. Some day I might get it right! ------------------ End of Position Paper #3.