Applying the scientific method to everyday life.

General Semantics differentiates between insane, unsane, and sane reasoning, with the category "unsane" reseserved for the kind of reasoning we see in everyday life that uses fallacies, assumptions that are not checked out, undelayed emotional reactions, deception, analogy, and other forms of rhetoric such as ad hominem (attack the person) and other non-logical and fallacious methods.  It has long been claimed principles of general semantics that we need to check out any assumptions, guesses, or judgements, etc., to insure that they agree with what can be observed. This perspective is called "extensional orientation", and it comes directly from the philosophy of science description of the process the need to test theories.  The need to keep the theories, judgements, assumptions, etc., consistent with observations goes back through the history of science to the ancient Greeks.  [See Heraclitus? or Xenophanes? and The Philosophy of Karl Popper.  We are also asked to delay our responses, so we can produce a "symbol response" rather than a "signal reaction". 

What do we  mean by "scientific method"?  Usually it means to collect (extensional) data, to analyze the data, to formulate hypothesises and theories (abstractions) , to devise ways to test the theories or hypothesises by making predictions about what will be observed, to conduct tests, add the test results to the data, and re-analyze.  Predictions that fail show us something is wrong with the theory; it doesn't work; we call it "disconfirmed".  Predictions that do not fail do not show us something is wrong with the theory; it works ... so far; we call it "corroborated". When a theory is corroborated we use it as part of our planning.  When a theory is disconfirmed we discard it or we restrict its use to the limited cases where it did not fail.  [For example, Newton's physics does not fail for low values of energy and short values of distance and time. But it does fail for large values of energy, distance, or time. Newton's physics is "disconfirmed", but useful in limited circumstances.  Einstein's relativity has been corroborated for large values of time, space, and energy.]

What happens if or when we apply the scientific method "rigorously" in our daily lives, never allowing ourselves to jump to conclusions without testing them, never responding immediately, but thinking and analyzing through and through using only valid logic and mathematics? This seems to be the end envisioned by Korzybski.  If we follow the application of the scientific method using only valid reasoning, what would we be like? What would our society be like? Korzybski seems to envision one with universal peace and more or less universal agreement, at least on the meaning we give to words.  If we do not permit ourselves to respond emotionally - if we must analyze our abstractions logically and coolly - would there be a place in our society for emotional responses?  We are expected to accept observed facts and build our maps to teach us how to navigate the facts.  We cannot have "negative" emotions about the state of facts as they are observed.  We may examine our abstraction process, but if the abstractions are corroborated by others, we have no choice but to accept them.  And, without "negative" emotions, there can be no "positive" emotions - as one exists only relative to its contrary. 

Can we see any cultural, I hesitate to use the word, "role models" to show us how we would act? Probably the most well known example is Mr. Spock from Star Trek, and his fellow Vulcans, who have evolved a society in which emotions are managed, surppressed, or otherwise controlled to prevent them from having any influence on behavior and choice.  Sarek, Spock's father, married Spock's human mother, because, "it was the logical thing to do at the time".

The current director of the IGS has labeled Spock's character as "extraordinarily alienated". Spock is a hybrid half human half Vulcan, raised as a Vulcan, not as a human, subject to the disapproval of Vulcan children while growing up, and the constant battle against his Vulcan heritage by the humans around him.  That might be enough to alienate anyone.  It, however, is not a reasoned critique of the Vulcan cultural system, nor is it a valid critique of the logical end to applying general semantics strictly in human activity.

The principle of logical fate holds that conclusions follow inexorably from the starting premises. If we analyze the scientific method carefully, and we apply it more rigorously in our everyday life, we get one thing that Korzybski forecast.  An ethical system for humans based on their time-binding abilities - the passing of information to future generations using non-volatile symbols. By following the scientific methods rigorously, we would have no deception, no hostility, no emotions, etc..  We would achieve, as Korzybski put it "The Manhood of Humanity".

It does not seem to me that anyone in the general semantics community has carried the logic of Korzybski's system, applied to personal behavior, to its extended projections as to both individual behavior and the resulting culture.  I think that we are emotional creatures first and rational creatures second - and then only under great duress.  Logic has been taught in the schools for millenia; only a few have ever followed it.  It would appear by examining the extensional evidence - how have supposed, alegged, general semanticists behaved since Korzybski - that "fido" prevails.  Yelling, screaming, refusing to listen, dogmatic assertions, behind the scenes infighting - in short, all the things that charactize any competetive species - seem to have gotten no better.  And that's just what I got to see at some social gatherings.

Korzybski defined humans as time-binders by virtue of our ability to gather and transmit information in symbolic form over generations resulting in an exponential accumulation.  When we work together we build great things. The Golden Gate Bridge, Hoover Dam, Men on the Moon; but we don't work together just because we can.  We work together when we have an emotionally backed reason to do so.  Marriage from love,  social groups from a need to belong, A great accomplishment from one man's desire-dream (the Moon :: Kennedy), scientific research from the desire of a few to know and understand, and so on.

We are "emotional" life before we are "rational" life, so we must use our rationality in the service of our emotions.  Korzybski want us to live a "sane" rational life - devoid of (or at least unresponsive to) (emotional) signal-reactions.

Learning To Apply General Semantics?

At 13:58 on 2009/04/06 on the General Semantics Discussion website Bruce Kodish posted the following in the General Semantics for Beginners section:

Learning to Apply General Semantics

Something worth recalling from M. Kendig's 1943 "Introduction" to the Papers From The Second American Congress On General Semantics: Non-Aristotelian Methodology (Applied) For Sanity In Our Time . (The Congress took place in August 1941 at the University of Denver.) Kendig wrote:

Learning to apply general semantics is similar to learning to fly, in that no one ever became a pilot by studying the principles of aeronautics and watching a demonstration; much less by ability to carry on 'philosophical disputations' on the subject. This is an over-simple analogy but perhaps it will suggest the complexities involved in a re-education which aims to bring so many unconscious habitual responses under conscious control. ... (p. xviii)

It should be noted that no one ever became a pilot without "studying the principles of aeronautics and watching [many] a demonstration" (at least, not since the Wright brothers). Moreover carrying on "philosophical disputations" - a significant amount of questioning, answering, and arguing - forms a significant part of the learning process for pilot candidates as well as anyone else involved in active learning. No one "really" learns to understand who merely inputs and repeats.  Active learning requires re-thinking, re-formulating, questioning, and, yes, arguing. 

Flying entails a major investment in learning cognitive and motor skills that are precisely well defined as well as highly regulated by a major government body. No one becomes a pilot without demonstrating strict adherence to precisely well defined procedures as well as an ability to strictly conform to precise verbal standards that are highly regulated. Such standards are required for communicating with air-traffic controllers and for safety.

No such strict standards or regulating body exists for General Semantics. Even the principles of general semantics belie the formation of such standards within general semantics, as "the map is not the territory" dominates the relation between words and actions, between words and meanings, and between meanings and actions under the rubric "the map is not the territory".

In flight training rigorous consistency is maintained. One must pass rigorous verbal and physical standard tests in order to be licensed as a pilot. General semantics has no licensing requirements, no verbal standards, no licensing body, and no oversight process. What each one understands as general semantics depend on their respective exposure; meaning varies within each person; and language ("is not the meaning" - map is not territory) varies as well.

Unlike general semantics, the consequences of failure to apply the rigorously enforced verbal and physical standards and skills in flying has immediate deadly consequences. My brother and two companions died in a small plane crash for failing to properly apply the cognitive skills precisely and carefully. They conducted stall and recover testing with insufficient altitude and with a third person in the plane - contrary to the warning of the pilot handbook. Failure to apply the cognitive skill by not precisely following such recommendations meant that no amount of physical skill could save them when they went into the spin predicted. They were in a hurry to qualify on their newly acquired plane.  Flying is unforgiving of loosely interpreting the precise knowledge that comprises the principles of aeronautics and its application in flight.

Learning general semantics requires a re-education away from the kind of precise definitions, standards, and enforcement found in learning to become a pilot, because general semantics emphasizes that the word is not the thing and that we live with ubiquitous uncertainty.

We learn to turn our awareness inward to our own information processing in order to bring to consciousness many aspects of perception,  word usage, thinking,  associating, hypothesizing, etc.,  that we heretofore performed unconsciously.   We must become awakened to multi-level consciousness - holding an awareness of what we are perceiving, labeling, thinking, associating, hypothesizing, etc., while we develop a sophisticated awareness of how we are doing these very aforementioned things.  We learn to "see" how we are learning-knowing simultaneously with what we are learning-knowing, and how to use the second and higher order knowing (how)  to alter the first order knowing (what).

To put it simply and crudely, "I" become "divided" into two parts, a watcher-doer and a watcher-watcher applied primarily to all my observation-evaluation processes; the "watcher" keeps attention on the "doer" evaluating and correcting what the "doer" is perceiving, learning, deciding, etc.  Such a process has many levels or stages of development involving cultivating many skills.  We call this "consciousness of abstracting".

Developing and applying consciousness of abstracting becomes a lengthy process that may continue to improve throughout one's lifetime.   But it is far from learning a highly regulated body of knowledge and skills with precisely defined terminology.  (more)

Non-identity and Non-allness

Non-identity and non-allness name belief-principles of general semantics to apply in reevaluating our initial reasoning.

Of course, our initial reasoning must be consistent and coherent.  It must strictly conform to scientific principles, valid logic, and correct mathematical techniques. This first stage reasoning process must strictly eliminate all fallacies, document and justify any assumptions, and carefully measure any observations.  Any conclusions from that reasoning is thus assured that it follows logically.  Only in this way can contrary results of actual testing disconfirm assumptions or inferences.

Once our intitial reasoning is up to scientific standards,  we can apply the above principles by re-evaluate our initial reasoning to see if we might see some abstraction, assumption, or inference differently. Can we alter our perceived objects by changing the asbstraction - thus creating a different starting premise? We question the "idenity" of our abstracted objects by remembering non-allness - our abstraction missed things,  and non-identity - could we have come to a diferent object?  Can we revise our assumptions stimulated from those and other abstractions -  also creating a different starting point? Can we alter our inference structure, and thereby create a branching path in our prior reasoning to different higher level abstractions?

Upon revaluation of our reasoning and the prior results using the perspectives of non-identity and non-allness, we then must re-validate our new objects, assumptions, and inferences as we did with our initial reasoning - again - to insure strict adherence to the scientific process, valid logic, and correct mathematics.

Of course, familiarity with and use of these principles allows us to carefully consider our initial objects, assumptions and inferences at the beginning of the cycle, putting us ahead in the game at the beginning.

A little more "Consciousness of Abstracting".

Science News: This Week (2009/3/29) corroborates my claim that the brain uses nigh all its inputs, including memory, to understand its current situation - including what words it hears.

In the brain, the gift of gab — or at least the gift of knowing what someone’s gabbing about — depends on sight, not just sound. If a listener sees a talker’s lips moving or hands gesturing, certain brain networks pitch in to decode the meaning of what’s being said, a new study suggests.

Based on some of my other reading about brain circuitry, it appears that any circuits in the brain stimulated by the  totality of incoming  stimulation contribute to invoking related past experience.  This, it would seem, would include proprioceptive, interoceptive, hormone flux state, etc., information.  Other sources I read some time ago reported that motor neuron areas have been observed to be active when the subject was directed to think about words meaning some activity.  For example, 'run' activated motor areas for the legs.  Brain involvement in understanding language, it seems to me, would be but a small portion of brain involvement in the business of living, and since understanding and acting on language is continually used in daily activities, more brain function may be involved in language use than the limited areas evaluated by past medical and other research as critical.

Just one more bit of information to help us remember that even our direct object level experience involves interpretation, illustrating another incidence of "the map is not the territory", and we evaluate our conscious experience as a dynamic map.

misrepresentation or "map intentionally not similar to territory."

Except for one quote of Korzybski, the blog
http://generalsemantics.blogspot.com/ is all about Scientology.
Not updated since 2006. Don't these things go away sometime?

What "is" General Semantics?

General Semantics is perhaps best classified as a personal growth system providing tools to help us  integrate with our advanced symbolic and technological environment through updated understanding and use of the methods and findings of science. General Semantics - names a discipline based on learning and using the scientific method in our daily lives in the context of a classification system that distinguishes among plants, animals, and humans using the dimensions of energy, distance, and time. As any discipline does, it has its beliefs, values, ethics, and behavioral prescriptions.