What you are describing is a pattern of behavior. This pattern is a product of a pattern of thinking. That pattern of thinking treats truth is reductive. We know something by breaking it down to its essential parts. This is called Essentialism. One definition that I found described it this way. "The essentialist perspective advocates that individuals in categories such as class, ethnicity, gender, or sex share an intrinsic quality that is verifiable through empirical methods (whether currently known or unknown). Furthermore, essentialism focuses on what individuals are, not who they are and individuals are viewed as inherently a certain way and not developing through dynamic social processes."
The procedural crisis you describe is how a reductive society operates. It is proof that empiricism was always going to be a limited perspective on society and humanity. We know this because now those in power continually cancel people who say they have proof. There is no conversation where this can be discussed. It represents an historic collapse in Western thought. This is the ultimate end point of Enlightenment thought leading to the age of science and industry.
Empiricist reductive thinking meant that we could not see the whole of something. We are not whole beings, but essentially a collection of parts. It is a mechanistic view of society and human life. This means that our agency as human beings is lost. Agency being that capacity of each of us to act on our own. To make choices. To be self-reflective. And to stand apart from some classification, like a job title, that defines us.
I'm glad you posted this. I have been thinking about this very thing for a couple of weeks. It will lead to my next series of posts on holistic systems thinking. It is important that we have these shared conversations. As one of my colleagues and I often say to one another, "another Vulcan mindmeld moment."
Very good points. I hadn't quite put together the direct link between reductionism and this way of talking to each other... obvious now you say it. Look forward to your posts. Lol on the vulcan mindmeld [better (and more humble) than "great minds think alike"].
On the subject of empiricist reductive thinking, I am often reminded of a Star Trek episode where Kirk says to a bemused technician that "Spock's guesses are better than most people's facts".
"The procedural crisis you describe is how a reductive society operates. It is proof that empiricism was always going to be a limited perspective on society and humanity. We know this because now those in power continually cancel people who say they have proof. There is no conversation where this can be discussed. It represents an historic collapse in Western thought. This is the ultimate end point of Enlightenment thought leading to the age of science and industry."
Empiricist reductive thinking is not all bad in my opinion; it has got us to the point where we are today, which is undoubtedly better than where we were pre Enlightenment. Of course it does have its limitations but I don't think you can blame it for the current collapse in Western thought and the procedural crisis which Gary describes. Quite the opposite: those in power don't generally cancel those who say they have the proof, they cancel those who question the 'proof', i.e. the supposedly unassailable scientific narratives propagated by the MSM, various handpicked 'experts' and the political and academic establishment. Those who question the 'proof' most often adopt empiricist reductive thinking in order to effectively do so.
"Empiricist reductive thinking meant that we could not see the whole of something."
This will always be so, but in order to see the whole, you first first atomise the parts and then put them back together again, where the whole becomes - hopefully - something more than the sum of its individual parts.
"We are not whole beings, but essentially a collection of parts. It is a mechanistic view of society and human life. This means that our agency as human beings is lost. Agency being that capacity of each of us to act on our own. To make choices. To be self-reflective. And to stand apart from some classification, like a job title, that defines us."
Our agency as human beings is not diminished per se by empiricist reductive thinking, but it is limited of course. But our agency as human beings is seriously undermined by those in power who corrupt the process of scientific enquiry by intentionally not engaging in empiricist reductive thinking themselves and by ruthlessly censoring empiricist reductive thinking in those who question their preferred narratives. It is possible to stand apart from all classifications and yet still engage constructively in empirical analysis in order to start the process of uncovering the 'truth'.
The problem is not empirical reductionist thinking in the abstract, but in practice. It is used for cover to rationalize every crisis that has been used to order society. Every war of the modern age is argued diplomatically from a reductionist empirical position. Watch world leaders argue the rational basis for a nuclear strike against an enemy. Every health crisis has at its source an inability to understand how the whole body functions. It gave us COVID, the opioid epidemic, and obesity. Every economic crisis is a denial in the reality that if you spend what you do not have, you will go broke. I am convinced that we were always going to end up here. The question is, now what do we do?
cherish and express some of the beautiful, strong principles forst formulated at the beginning of the age of Enlightenment. humanism. perhaps the first step should & could be a renewed interest in using the concept of context, as in: describing events or separate parts of a whole as part of a wider context / process.
I agree with you. This is a major problem because the age of Enlightenment was based partially on the supreme value of the individual. As a result, the individual became the measure of all things. What resulted was a closed system of the mind. Not many were willing to exercise their human agency to be curious and remain open to new ideas, new experiences, or new people. The result was a context of inquiry that could not see the connections between phenomena. The empirical method, therefore, has a limited value, instead of an absolute, society defining one. How did the empirical method take on an absoluteness where the identification of the parts is greater than the connection of them
This context to which you refer is the world of relationships? Not just human relationships, but our human connection to all that exists. Our relationship should be based initially on respect, rather the utilitarian use of people and things. I believe that events of the past century are making it easier to see the big picture instead of a miniaturized one. Thank you for your insight.
I suspect that, in the backrooms of Western governments, there's been concern that democratic systems may be failing to autocratic ones, not on idealogical grounds, but simply in terms of industrial or military output. I could certainly imagine many Western govs as seeing China in this kind of potential light. So the West has decided that, in order to compete with this potential threat, they need to roll back some democratic freedoms themselves, and use the media to weaponise the minds of as many citizens as possible. Such a decision is of course not the kind of thing you can talk about but to me it seems to fit the bill for what's going on.
You say it isn't the kind of thing you can talk about, but I remember President Biden making pretty much this exact point during a speech. I don't remember which speech mind you, but he did make this point about competing with China specifically.
That's interesting, thank you. I didn't know that.
One of the reasons I moved away from the West was because I just felt like my mind was being weaponised all the time. I don't really agree with this approach.
Oh, yes, "However, the one area where I have seen this change most starkly over just the last couple of years, and is perhaps the most disastrous example, is when it comes to discussions about scientific questions, and amongst academics and university types."
Existential questions for academics and university manque types are so urgent, yet so painful.
Yes, since originally writing this, I have come to see more and more how this is a "culture" which has manipulated and imposed on us, and this manipulation goes back centuries. They didn't get rid or slavery of serfdom, they just tricked us into enslaving ourselves to the system. Creating unthinking people is part of it.
I think you're spot on here, but I'd like to point out another feature I've noticed, namely that there is a common type of scientist that applies standards of humility that go so far that they are unwilling to extrapolate research findings in certain areas, but are completely credulous towards scientists in other fields that proffer wild extrapolations that are taken as gospel if aligned with the narrative. In the absence of evidence things like the precautionary principle exist for a reason, but when you're just reasoning about what is likely and not advocating for policy, extrapolation aids in understanding, if only for generating additional research questions and hypotheses.
Can you give an example? Is this another form of "cherry picking"? Also, Bret W. often talks about how there is a fear to hypothesis in modern science in case one ends up being wrong, and hence some ideas are never explored, and science can't proceed this way.
Yes, I can give a broad example and a specific one. The broad one is the "Science Based Medicine" crowd. Meant to be in opposition to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) these folks make use of Bayesian inference (which I also do and like) to point out the absurdity of running trial after trial and always saying more evidence is needed. In the case of some treatments like homeopathy, this is spot on, because what is the prior probability that water with no molecules of the medication being used is more effective than the medication in question (assuming the med has any positive effect). These folks were also the most rabid supporters of the mRNA vaccine and have a deep hatred of the anti-vax crowd what with their general affinity for CAM. The specific example is I was talking to a colleague who just earned their PhD in biomechanics talking about mechanical occupational factors being associated with back pain. I extrapolated off of some studies and recognized there is a common Simpson's Paradox if you don't sub-classify back pain (it isn't a homogeneous condition) and I was admonished that "you can't do that" (as in extrapolate and come to a conclusion if a specific RCT hadn't been conducted in the exact population I was talking about). I feel like institutions promote this myopic approach to science and understanding. That was the most dramatic example I've encountered personally. I agree it is probably driven by fear of being wrong to a large degree, but obviously you're going to need to be wrong sometimes if you're going to move the ball down the field.
Wonderfully written Gary. I cant help but agree completely. I think one of the key issues here though os something that you rightly mention. Principles.
I just put up flyers for a local "Listening Circle" here in my Indiana small town. I also like to call them "Small Town Peace Talks." While it seems peaceful here, there are a lot of divides, alienation, resentments, and such under the surface. Most people here are from here, belong to their church and family, and that is it - anyone who differs from their dogma is suspect or even demonized. The vax issue goes largely unsaid, but broke connections further. This has all been very painful personally, so it is a bit daunting to put on a heart-centered "non-dogmatic" talking circle. But with the grievous slaughter in the news, it is the calling I feel in these times. The healing needs to begin.
I will suggest a talking circle first round, a listening-for-the-Spirit round, and then an empathy practice round allowing a bit of cross talk, before closing with personal stretches/future intentions/gratitude. These come from various traditions I have practiced along the way. Ultimately I would like to take this on the road as a non-profit, similar to some of my mentors' NonViolent Communication gatherings, but with an emphasis on broader Truth & Reconciliation aspects. I am very inspired to restart Dominic Barter's Restorative Circles practice https://restorativejusticeontherise.org/dominic-barter-of-restorative-circles/ and to weave it all together into something I call Reconciliation Circles.
Thank you Gary for your inspiring contributions to the healing!
Grim, but good list Gary. From recent personal experience, I'd add Gish-Gallop, Bait-and-Switch, and 'too busy' to watch, read, or listen to contradictory evidence to that short list of tactics used for winning at the expense of Platonic ideals. But that list is long. A new one for me, thanks to the WHO, is 'self-empowering 'might makes right' by default, depending on the silence of resistance".
I see something different. I do not see 2 sides equally locked into their belief in their rightness. My experience, as a long-time truth sleuth, is that many people - the anti-fact people - are locked away from facts - in some nasty cement block. Other people are growing and learning. For instance, those like me have been aware of the dangers of the injections for ages, etc. Others are rigid against taking in information. In other words, I see something radically different from what you see.
I am definitely not saying there is no objective truth. As an aficionado of Dr Iain McGillchrist's work, who spends 100s of pages in his new book on how we come to truth, I definitely believe that we can come closer ever to it, as well as that there are criteria for assessing which position is likely to be the most truthful one, by looking for the signs of left-hemisphere over-activated thinking, as opposed to the big picture, contextualized right-hemisphere way of attending to the world.. What I am saying is the way we are talking to each other about everything (abortion, Trump, Brexit, Ukraine, Twitter, free speech, the next new thing...) completely blocks collective sense-making and truth-seeking and coming to cultural agreement. Nor am I saying this is done equally on both sides, and there are indeed power imbalances, and one-side censorship. What I am saying is when people in good faith engage in this Legalese mode of discussion, they are playing in to the hands of the Divide & Rule tactics. And yes, I'm afaid do see a lot of folks on "our" side being guilty of knowining engaging in the sophistry, and that this achieves the opposite of waking more people up, drives them even more into entrenched positions, including the ones we may have reached by other means. So we need to get our own house in order too.
I agree with much that you say. But when you say, "What I am saying is the way WE are talking to each other . . " I disagree. You are not presenting the situation as I have experienced it over and over. I have experienced, over and over, those on the anti-fact side acting as you say, but those on the pro-fact side not being at all as you say. By not being accurate about this, I see you as misrepresenting something fundamental to what is happening.
What you are describing is a pattern of behavior. This pattern is a product of a pattern of thinking. That pattern of thinking treats truth is reductive. We know something by breaking it down to its essential parts. This is called Essentialism. One definition that I found described it this way. "The essentialist perspective advocates that individuals in categories such as class, ethnicity, gender, or sex share an intrinsic quality that is verifiable through empirical methods (whether currently known or unknown). Furthermore, essentialism focuses on what individuals are, not who they are and individuals are viewed as inherently a certain way and not developing through dynamic social processes."
The procedural crisis you describe is how a reductive society operates. It is proof that empiricism was always going to be a limited perspective on society and humanity. We know this because now those in power continually cancel people who say they have proof. There is no conversation where this can be discussed. It represents an historic collapse in Western thought. This is the ultimate end point of Enlightenment thought leading to the age of science and industry.
Empiricist reductive thinking meant that we could not see the whole of something. We are not whole beings, but essentially a collection of parts. It is a mechanistic view of society and human life. This means that our agency as human beings is lost. Agency being that capacity of each of us to act on our own. To make choices. To be self-reflective. And to stand apart from some classification, like a job title, that defines us.
I'm glad you posted this. I have been thinking about this very thing for a couple of weeks. It will lead to my next series of posts on holistic systems thinking. It is important that we have these shared conversations. As one of my colleagues and I often say to one another, "another Vulcan mindmeld moment."
Very good points. I hadn't quite put together the direct link between reductionism and this way of talking to each other... obvious now you say it. Look forward to your posts. Lol on the vulcan mindmeld [better (and more humble) than "great minds think alike"].
On the subject of empiricist reductive thinking, I am often reminded of a Star Trek episode where Kirk says to a bemused technician that "Spock's guesses are better than most people's facts".
lol
"The procedural crisis you describe is how a reductive society operates. It is proof that empiricism was always going to be a limited perspective on society and humanity. We know this because now those in power continually cancel people who say they have proof. There is no conversation where this can be discussed. It represents an historic collapse in Western thought. This is the ultimate end point of Enlightenment thought leading to the age of science and industry."
Empiricist reductive thinking is not all bad in my opinion; it has got us to the point where we are today, which is undoubtedly better than where we were pre Enlightenment. Of course it does have its limitations but I don't think you can blame it for the current collapse in Western thought and the procedural crisis which Gary describes. Quite the opposite: those in power don't generally cancel those who say they have the proof, they cancel those who question the 'proof', i.e. the supposedly unassailable scientific narratives propagated by the MSM, various handpicked 'experts' and the political and academic establishment. Those who question the 'proof' most often adopt empiricist reductive thinking in order to effectively do so.
"Empiricist reductive thinking meant that we could not see the whole of something."
This will always be so, but in order to see the whole, you first first atomise the parts and then put them back together again, where the whole becomes - hopefully - something more than the sum of its individual parts.
"We are not whole beings, but essentially a collection of parts. It is a mechanistic view of society and human life. This means that our agency as human beings is lost. Agency being that capacity of each of us to act on our own. To make choices. To be self-reflective. And to stand apart from some classification, like a job title, that defines us."
Our agency as human beings is not diminished per se by empiricist reductive thinking, but it is limited of course. But our agency as human beings is seriously undermined by those in power who corrupt the process of scientific enquiry by intentionally not engaging in empiricist reductive thinking themselves and by ruthlessly censoring empiricist reductive thinking in those who question their preferred narratives. It is possible to stand apart from all classifications and yet still engage constructively in empirical analysis in order to start the process of uncovering the 'truth'.
The problem is not empirical reductionist thinking in the abstract, but in practice. It is used for cover to rationalize every crisis that has been used to order society. Every war of the modern age is argued diplomatically from a reductionist empirical position. Watch world leaders argue the rational basis for a nuclear strike against an enemy. Every health crisis has at its source an inability to understand how the whole body functions. It gave us COVID, the opioid epidemic, and obesity. Every economic crisis is a denial in the reality that if you spend what you do not have, you will go broke. I am convinced that we were always going to end up here. The question is, now what do we do?
cherish and express some of the beautiful, strong principles forst formulated at the beginning of the age of Enlightenment. humanism. perhaps the first step should & could be a renewed interest in using the concept of context, as in: describing events or separate parts of a whole as part of a wider context / process.
I agree with you. This is a major problem because the age of Enlightenment was based partially on the supreme value of the individual. As a result, the individual became the measure of all things. What resulted was a closed system of the mind. Not many were willing to exercise their human agency to be curious and remain open to new ideas, new experiences, or new people. The result was a context of inquiry that could not see the connections between phenomena. The empirical method, therefore, has a limited value, instead of an absolute, society defining one. How did the empirical method take on an absoluteness where the identification of the parts is greater than the connection of them
This context to which you refer is the world of relationships? Not just human relationships, but our human connection to all that exists. Our relationship should be based initially on respect, rather the utilitarian use of people and things. I believe that events of the past century are making it easier to see the big picture instead of a miniaturized one. Thank you for your insight.
I suspect that, in the backrooms of Western governments, there's been concern that democratic systems may be failing to autocratic ones, not on idealogical grounds, but simply in terms of industrial or military output. I could certainly imagine many Western govs as seeing China in this kind of potential light. So the West has decided that, in order to compete with this potential threat, they need to roll back some democratic freedoms themselves, and use the media to weaponise the minds of as many citizens as possible. Such a decision is of course not the kind of thing you can talk about but to me it seems to fit the bill for what's going on.
Yes, I think there is something in this... following china's example of lockdowns put this into stark reality.
You say it isn't the kind of thing you can talk about, but I remember President Biden making pretty much this exact point during a speech. I don't remember which speech mind you, but he did make this point about competing with China specifically.
That's interesting, thank you. I didn't know that.
One of the reasons I moved away from the West was because I just felt like my mind was being weaponised all the time. I don't really agree with this approach.
What passes for true understanding, i.e. standing underneath, of issues facing our times is lamentable to say the least.
Thank you!
Oh, yes, "However, the one area where I have seen this change most starkly over just the last couple of years, and is perhaps the most disastrous example, is when it comes to discussions about scientific questions, and amongst academics and university types."
Existential questions for academics and university manque types are so urgent, yet so painful.
Thanks.. I had to look up the word "manque" ... "having failed to become what one might have been"? ... a useful term!
"Our" culture is not our culture. It is an anti-us culture - anti-awake anti-thinking people.
Yes, since originally writing this, I have come to see more and more how this is a "culture" which has manipulated and imposed on us, and this manipulation goes back centuries. They didn't get rid or slavery of serfdom, they just tricked us into enslaving ourselves to the system. Creating unthinking people is part of it.
I see that, like many of us, you are waking up more and more. Me too. So much learning, coming to recognize.
I think you're spot on here, but I'd like to point out another feature I've noticed, namely that there is a common type of scientist that applies standards of humility that go so far that they are unwilling to extrapolate research findings in certain areas, but are completely credulous towards scientists in other fields that proffer wild extrapolations that are taken as gospel if aligned with the narrative. In the absence of evidence things like the precautionary principle exist for a reason, but when you're just reasoning about what is likely and not advocating for policy, extrapolation aids in understanding, if only for generating additional research questions and hypotheses.
Can you give an example? Is this another form of "cherry picking"? Also, Bret W. often talks about how there is a fear to hypothesis in modern science in case one ends up being wrong, and hence some ideas are never explored, and science can't proceed this way.
Yes, I can give a broad example and a specific one. The broad one is the "Science Based Medicine" crowd. Meant to be in opposition to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) these folks make use of Bayesian inference (which I also do and like) to point out the absurdity of running trial after trial and always saying more evidence is needed. In the case of some treatments like homeopathy, this is spot on, because what is the prior probability that water with no molecules of the medication being used is more effective than the medication in question (assuming the med has any positive effect). These folks were also the most rabid supporters of the mRNA vaccine and have a deep hatred of the anti-vax crowd what with their general affinity for CAM. The specific example is I was talking to a colleague who just earned their PhD in biomechanics talking about mechanical occupational factors being associated with back pain. I extrapolated off of some studies and recognized there is a common Simpson's Paradox if you don't sub-classify back pain (it isn't a homogeneous condition) and I was admonished that "you can't do that" (as in extrapolate and come to a conclusion if a specific RCT hadn't been conducted in the exact population I was talking about). I feel like institutions promote this myopic approach to science and understanding. That was the most dramatic example I've encountered personally. I agree it is probably driven by fear of being wrong to a large degree, but obviously you're going to need to be wrong sometimes if you're going to move the ball down the field.
Wonderfully written Gary. I cant help but agree completely. I think one of the key issues here though os something that you rightly mention. Principles.
I love this analogy. Very telling and accurate.
Gary do you ever read Matt Taibi's Su stack or Glenn Greenwald's work? I think Yu would find both refreshing.
I loved your last paragraph in particular, Gary. Hear, hear! as the judges would say ;-)
Thank you for another wonderful post Gary.
I just put up flyers for a local "Listening Circle" here in my Indiana small town. I also like to call them "Small Town Peace Talks." While it seems peaceful here, there are a lot of divides, alienation, resentments, and such under the surface. Most people here are from here, belong to their church and family, and that is it - anyone who differs from their dogma is suspect or even demonized. The vax issue goes largely unsaid, but broke connections further. This has all been very painful personally, so it is a bit daunting to put on a heart-centered "non-dogmatic" talking circle. But with the grievous slaughter in the news, it is the calling I feel in these times. The healing needs to begin.
I will suggest a talking circle first round, a listening-for-the-Spirit round, and then an empathy practice round allowing a bit of cross talk, before closing with personal stretches/future intentions/gratitude. These come from various traditions I have practiced along the way. Ultimately I would like to take this on the road as a non-profit, similar to some of my mentors' NonViolent Communication gatherings, but with an emphasis on broader Truth & Reconciliation aspects. I am very inspired to restart Dominic Barter's Restorative Circles practice https://restorativejusticeontherise.org/dominic-barter-of-restorative-circles/ and to weave it all together into something I call Reconciliation Circles.
Thank you Gary for your inspiring contributions to the healing!
Wow! That sounds great, and great to hear about someone actually implementing in real life! Good luck with it.
Loved this the first time. So well said.
Thanks!
Grim, but good list Gary. From recent personal experience, I'd add Gish-Gallop, Bait-and-Switch, and 'too busy' to watch, read, or listen to contradictory evidence to that short list of tactics used for winning at the expense of Platonic ideals. But that list is long. A new one for me, thanks to the WHO, is 'self-empowering 'might makes right' by default, depending on the silence of resistance".
Add that people love to be baffled by bullshit speak like medical lingo or legalese or the garbage that economics experts babble.
We need a reform of the system to speak plain English, not psedo-intellectual tongues.
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/
I see something different. I do not see 2 sides equally locked into their belief in their rightness. My experience, as a long-time truth sleuth, is that many people - the anti-fact people - are locked away from facts - in some nasty cement block. Other people are growing and learning. For instance, those like me have been aware of the dangers of the injections for ages, etc. Others are rigid against taking in information. In other words, I see something radically different from what you see.
I am definitely not saying there is no objective truth. As an aficionado of Dr Iain McGillchrist's work, who spends 100s of pages in his new book on how we come to truth, I definitely believe that we can come closer ever to it, as well as that there are criteria for assessing which position is likely to be the most truthful one, by looking for the signs of left-hemisphere over-activated thinking, as opposed to the big picture, contextualized right-hemisphere way of attending to the world.. What I am saying is the way we are talking to each other about everything (abortion, Trump, Brexit, Ukraine, Twitter, free speech, the next new thing...) completely blocks collective sense-making and truth-seeking and coming to cultural agreement. Nor am I saying this is done equally on both sides, and there are indeed power imbalances, and one-side censorship. What I am saying is when people in good faith engage in this Legalese mode of discussion, they are playing in to the hands of the Divide & Rule tactics. And yes, I'm afaid do see a lot of folks on "our" side being guilty of knowining engaging in the sophistry, and that this achieves the opposite of waking more people up, drives them even more into entrenched positions, including the ones we may have reached by other means. So we need to get our own house in order too.
I agree with much that you say. But when you say, "What I am saying is the way WE are talking to each other . . " I disagree. You are not presenting the situation as I have experienced it over and over. I have experienced, over and over, those on the anti-fact side acting as you say, but those on the pro-fact side not being at all as you say. By not being accurate about this, I see you as misrepresenting something fundamental to what is happening.
Heather Heying's new post today I think speaks to what you are saying https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/reckoning