Just Human?

Introduction  |  Community  |  Challenges  |  News  |  Resources  |  Contact  |  Join  |  Admin

(Back to Home ... Challenges)

Particles, People and Purpose

Introduction

This is our suggested framework.  It aims to divide all of reality ('like Gaul') into three parts: physical, social and spiritual.  The reason for this division is to help us talk productively: it is not an assumption or a belief you are being asked to adopt, simply a useful tool you are being invited to use.  If you can suggest a more helpful tool, please do; in the meantime, feel free to make the most of this one.

• Physical. Roughly, the subject matter of the 'hard sciences'; answering questions about particles and forces; asking questions like, "What is happening?"  What we discover here is true at all times and in all places.  If we ever meet intelligent aliens, we will be able to talk with them about atoms and prime numbers and electrical currents.
• Social.  Roughly, the subject matter of the humanities or 'social sciences'; answering questions about people and societies; asking questions like, "Why is this happening?"  What we discover here is often true in specific contexts.  If we ever meet intelligent aliens, they will almost certainly have their own equivalents of psychology, sociology, politics and economics, but they will be different from ours, and their answers may not work for us.
• Spiritual.  Roughly, the subject matter of the philosophers and religions; answering questions about morality, values and purpose; asking questions like, "What should be happening?"  It can be hard to describe what happens here as 'discovering truth', but progress does get made: slavery has been officially abolished in much of the world, and this is not the result of an improved understanding of mathematics or economics.  If we ever meet intelligent aliens, it seems likely that they will have wrestled with the same big questions as us, and we will each seek to learn from and make use of the answers which the other race has found.

We can talk in a meaningful way within each area about the search for truth, but the specific techniques and disciplines we use in the search for truth vary from area to area: there are detailed rules governing activity in a laboratory and a law court; we recognize that these rules should be different, because they operate in different areas.  Of course, in the real world, everything we do generally involves all three parts: in a laboratory, the experiments are carefully conducted according to the rules of science; but who conducts the experiments, how much they get paid, and how much recognition they get for their work all depend on the social rules; and the people may well be conducting the experiments because they want to make a difference, or they believe that knowledge is worth pursuing.  So these three parts can be thought of as three different dimensions: we can look at any activity from any of these three perspectives, but conversations get very confused when we start to mix them up.

Searching for Truth

While the search for truth involves techniques and disciplines which vary between the different areas, the search itself is a human activity, and the same basic principles apply whatever the specifics of the area under consideration.  We are story-telling animals, so we have two basic questions.

• What is the story?  What are the details? Is it coherent? How does this story differ from the other stories people tell?
• What is the evidence?  What is the evidence for and against this story?  Who is telling it, and why?  Are there other stories the evidence could support? Is there other relevant evidence which should be considered?

These questions are vital, whether we are seeking to understand String Theory or voting methods or free will.

But we can take our search for truth one step further.  Actual truth is always truth seen in a specific context, which means we need to understand three things.

1. Proposition.  What, precisely, is the proposition being put forward here?
1. What is the story?  What are the details? Is it coherent? How does this story differ from the other stories people tell?
2. What is the evidence?  What is the evidence for and against this story? Are there other stories the evidence could support? Is there other relevant evidence which should be considered?
2. Perspective.  You can only consider a proposition from a specific perspective, making a certain set of assumptions.
1. What are the assumptions?  What direction are we viewing this story from?  Who is telling it, and why?  What assumptions, does the story assume?
2. What are the alternatives?  What other directions or assumptions are possible?  How do they change the story?
3. Priority.  This proposition does not exist alone, it must be considers alongside other propositions, giving it a context and significance.
1. What is the context?  What are the other propositions we need to understand to fully grasp this proposition?  Do they support or undermine this story?  How does changing the context change the proposition?
2. What is important?  In what direction or directions does cause and effect flow here?  How important is this proposition when we look at the bigger picture?

Further Details

The division of all reality into three parts is, to some extent, arbitrary, seeking to use categories which people are already familiar with. 

It would be possible to divide all reality into just two parts, the physical and the spiritual (for want of better names).  This would have the advantage of providing clear lines between the two: the physical deals with objective reality, everything which can be counted and measured; and the spiritual deals with everything else.  It is the default framework used in the ancient worlds we are familiar with, by the ancient Greeks and the Hebrews and (as far as I can tell) every other civilized nation.  At the start of Genesis, God creates the Heavens (spiritual reality) and the Earth (physical reality).  The human race is created by combining spirit with dust.  And so on. 

The middle part, 'social reality', is essentially constructed from the overlap of the other two - where you deal with items belonging to the spiritual reality, but handle them only in ways which derive from the physical reality.  So, for example, money belongs to the spiritual reality - the value of an object cannot be determined by scientific examination - but you can successfully study economics as a strict materialist. Similarly, you can practice law without believing that justice really exists, or psychiatry without believing that guilt really exists: it is enough that people act as if money, or justice, or guilt, exists.  Margaret Thatcher famously said, 'there is no such thing as society', but that did not prevent her from engaging in social engineering.

It is in this middle part where most of our practical challenges lie: few of us will be engaged in the creation of a commercial fusion reactor, or in the creation of more efficient batteries from less polluting materials; for most of us, our task is to be a part of the social movements which seek to reshape society in the ways we need to change, to persuade our politicians to create laws which reward the necessary activity and punish the destructive activity, and to persuade others that these need to be our priorities.  And, as this is where most of our energy needs to be directed, it is probably helpful to engage with these challenges as a single unit.

The threefold division comes from a couple of articles which have been circulated and discussed in the past, but further comment is welcome.

• Introducing Particles, People and Purpose
• Particles, People and Purpose