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.