SystemsThinkers : Message: Newsletter #9

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//SoftQuad//DTD HoTMetaL PRO
5.0::19981022::extensions to HTML 4.0//EN" "hmpro5.dtd">

<HTML>

<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-
1252">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 97">
<TITLE>Mark Amadeus Notturno, Science and the Open Society: The
Future of Karl
Popper's Philosophy, Central European University Press, 2000</TITLE>
</HEAD>

<BODY LINK="#0000ff">
A Global Network of Systems Thinkers
 Newsletter #9 by <A
HREF="mailto:myers_kent@...">Kent
Myers</A>
Meeting postponed. Our get-together at Allentown, PA,
originally
scheduled for June 9, has been postponed. The 'redesign of business
education'
will proceed without us for now. A point I might have made at the
meeting is
that things are in flux due to challenges such as distance education,
the new
economy, and adult learners. Systems thinking could jump in and
reassert itself
-- meaning that we could jump in and reassert ourselves.
<A HREF="mailto:wwroth@...">Bill Roth</A> is doing his part and
might get a
new program started. I was hoping to pick up some news at the
meeting. Please
send me news and other materials, and I will post them in this
newsletter.
Book Review 
Mark Amadeus Notturno, Science and the Open Society: The
Future of
Karl Popper's Philosophy, Central European University Press,
2000.
<A

HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/963911670X/aglobalnetwork
of">See
book at Amazon</A>
[Mr. Notturno kindly offered some comments on this review. They
are attached
as footnotes, and I think they will give you a good flavor for his
thinking, as
well as a correction of my impressions.]
There are many excellent critiques of contemporary discourse, but
few
disclose the problem in its broader range. Of those that do, fewer
still
identify principles by which we could extricate ourselves. Popper
would seem an
unlikely starting point. In the opinion of many, Popper had his day
along with
the authoritarianism he opposed. Indeed, the main impetus for revival
of
Popper's open society concept has been George Soros's effort to help
polities
in the former Soviet block rid themselves of the vestiges of
communism. What
worries Soros is that former Soviet citizens will retain a utopian
thought
structure and simply plug in different parts, notably markets and
democracy.
Visiting Americans don't always help. Russians who receive lectures
from
Americans complain of condescension, but it is often worse than that -
- the
lecturers don't understand the underpinnings of the institutions they
recommend. The lecturer may assume that markets and democracy will, by
themselves and of necessity, create a non-authoritarian social field.
They
don't. It is one of Notturno's aims to explain this disturbing
possibility that
many Western elites fail to grasp. 
The author has applied remarkable energy to running open society
seminars
through the post-Soviet world. Some of the chapters of the book are
based on
these seminars, and the talks are honed through frequent delivery
before groups
that are receptive yet skeptical. It would be a terrible mistake to
assume that
the presence of this audience means that the book is not relevant to
the
American experience. Notturno understands that Popper's intention was
to
promote openness in all modern societies, not just Communist ones,
and he has
admirably brought Popper's program up to date. He efficiently
critiques the
primacy given to consensus in science. He also addresses dangers
outside the
scientific institution proper by taking on tolerance, relativism,
therapy, and
bureaucracy. 
In several cases his starting point is biographical, and he offers
some
revealing letters and contemporary accounts that most of us will not
be
familiar with. These materials give his philosophical arguments
freshness and
motivation not often found in academic works. Wittgenstein, Carnap,
Freud,
Bohr, Kuhn, and several other heroes are indicted for various
offenses against
open science. Popper isn't spared either, though he certainly comes
out ahead
on crucial matters. 
The best feature of the book is that the reader has a sense of
where to
begin and what to do. I found myself wanting to stand up, ask a
question, and
engage somebody in authentic discussion. You are propelled forward
toward
problems, in your own voice, not backward toward anything that Popper
might
have said. I can image that this would be a very useful book in
almost any
public affairs course that reflects on ground rules for debate and
investigation. Better yet, the book can help adult learners free
themselves
from the stifling rhetoric of ideologists. 
I was curious and asked Notturno where his program is headed. I
was pleased
to find that he has plans for workshops, international academic
contacts,
dissertation support, and other collaborations that offer practical
results, or
at least a fuller sense of what rational discussion entails. I
recommend that
you get in touch with him, especially if you have ideas on how to
institutionalize these activities. Contact
<A HREF="mailto:MANotturno@...">MANotturno@...</A>. 
Disputing disputation. I accept what Notturno extracts from
Popper as
good logic, but I wonder whether something more needs to be said
about the
social side of argument. Popper was relentless in finding the
contradictions in
others. Students who tried to fend him off using self-protective
rhetoric often
felt ridiculed when his persistent questions eventually forced them
to admit
their errors. But it is probably the case that students who adhered
to good
logic were also humiliated. The assumption behind such intellectual
conflict is
that contradictions are not voluntarily displayed. More generally,
one defends
tidy statements that brook no problem. Is that the kind of statement
we must
have at the ready before speaking to each other, and is that process
ideal?

I wonder about such things, and suffer for it. Last week, I
drafted a report
and offered examples of how software could be used. I mentioned an
operation
that would be useful to execute in the software, but cautioned that
the
operation might be too difficult to implement. I figured that it
would be
useful to retain the idea as a possibility rather than to discard it.
The
project manager, adhering to conventional practice, did not want this
or any
problem mentioned in our report, and the idea was discarded. The
motivation, I
suppose, is to give the client nothing that can be questioned, nothing
incomplete. Is that good? 
The same sort of thing happens when writing definitions. The
definition and
examples stay well within what is safe to say, and no guidance is
offered that
would help decide hard cases, which is exactly when definitions are
needed.

We challenge each other to find weaknesses that we are reluctant
to disclose
and may actually be hiding. It is a cat and mouse game, not a mutual
exploration with a common object. To explore together would require a
kind of
trust between partners that doesn't often exist. 
One approach to building that trust is to create a space for
imaginative
thought in which a different set of rules is enforced. DeBono has
argued well
for a separate imaginative effort prior the critical effort,
symbolized as
green hat versus black hat thinking. But consider how things actually
play out
in an organization that sequesters thinking in this way. 3M requires
that
people work on secret projects for a significant percentage of their
time, and
they are expected to bring a project forward when it is ready to be
criticized.
Whenever anything is brought before an "outsider", the
presumption is
that it is offered as something to be attacked. There is no
possibility of
wider collaboration beyond a secret cell of partners. 
To put it bluntly, I'm wondering whether loose thinking should be
an element
of openness. The idea is not to avoid critical thinking, but to
neither elevate
nor extend it to the point that it suppresses options, rewards
timidity, and
encourages unproductive conflict. [1]
In both science and business, new approaches that eventually prove
to be
better usually perform poorly at the beginning. An idea gains a
following on an
intuitive, theoretical, or emotional basis before it reaches final
form. [2]
Without these non-rational appeals, which are very similar to the
"communal" appeals that Notturno counts as a danger, the
innovation
pipeline could dry up. [3] Notturno says that false theories are a
dime a
dozen, which is true, but new theories are in the same stack. 
An open attitude, I feel, is something different from the critical
attitude
that is admittedly necessary to sustain both open science and an open
society.
An open attitude can tolerate indecision, incompleteness, and even
contradiction. (Someone said that the test of a good mind is that it
can hold
contradictory thoughts simultaneously.) [4] The open attitude moves
toward
clarity, but not prematurely and not toward complete closure. That
may be too
much forbearance to ask for some, and offer too easy a ride for
others. Yet, in
our atmosphere of both heavy criticism and a communal science
that
avoids criticism, we tend to confine ourselves to safe science. Those
who can't
stand this situation may exile themselves, or claim outlandish
revolutions,
neither of which gains any traction. 
The open society concept raises much useful discussion, but it is
also a
matter of survival. I haven't discussed the authoritarian threats
that the
concept helps bring into relief. The book is well worth reading on
that
account. Here is a sample that hits close to home:
Popper believed that science consists of problems and that we
learn by
trying, and failing, to solve them. But if this is true, then an
expert would
have to be an expert not in a subject or in a field,
but in a
problem whose solutions might depend upon all sorts of things
that range
beyond the boundaries of what are typically recognized as academic
fields.

But it is really more than this. Popper was skeptical of
intellectual
authority and of education that is based upon it. He believed that we
should
not rely upon experts, and proposed, as a new goal of liberal
education, that
we learn to distinguish between experts and charlatans instead. He
criticized
teachers who treat science as a 'body of knowledge,' saying that
students learn
intellectual honesty, a respect for truth, and a disregard for
authority only
if they experience for themselves how easy it is to make mistakes.
(p.52)

===========
Comments from the author:
[1] I agree very strongly with this, and so did Popper. I hope
that I
haven't left the opposite impression by not stressing the non-
rational element
of inquiry in my book. Popper thought that there was no logic of
discovering
new ideas, and that the creative, imaginative element involved in
coming up
with a new idea or theory is something that may not be rational and
need not be
rationally explained. Indeed, one of the chief reasons for opposing
inductivism
is that it pretends to offer a rational method for coming up with new
ideas---a
method that gives a logic of discovery and justification all in one.
I tried to
develop it in `Inference and Deference', as well as other places, by
emphasizing the irreducible role that judgment (or choice) plays in
rational
argument. 
 [2] I certainly agree with this. We clearly fall in love with
some ideas
and hate others, etc. I am not sure whether our ideas ever reach a
`final'
form. And this, I think, is part of Popper's point. Every machine
that we now
have---a car, a pencil, etc.---is the result of countless little
improvements
that we have made, and continue to make, to them over the years. I
would only
want to point out, without in any way diminishing the irrational
element in
finding a new idea, that these improvements to our ideas typically
involve
critical thinking. We find a problem with what exists, and then try
to find a
way to make it better. That's critical thinking in my sense. 
 [3] These are clearly non-rational aspects of discovery. But I am
wondering
whether they are so clearly communal aspects. There is, of course, an
ebb and
flow. But my own sense is that communalism very often opposes
innovation---it
certainly did in the former Soviet Union, and it often does so here as
well---because innovation may threaten the vested interests of the
community.
The Russians have a proverb: `Any initiative will be punished!' 
[4] I entirely agree that an open attitude involves an openness to
new
ideas, and that a disposition to criticism may accompany a very
closed mind. (I
hope I haven't said anything in the book that suggests otherwise.) I
also agree
that an open attitude can tolerate indecision and incompleteness. But
I'm less
clear about contradictions. I should say, first of all, that I
understand
`contradiction' in the logical sense, i.e., two statements are
contradictory if
and only if they cannot both be true and they cannot both be false. I
say this,
because many people understand the term in a looser sense. Now I
entirely agree
that a good mind can hold---or contemplate---contradictory thoughts
simultaneously. I would, in fact, go one step further and say that a
good mind
MUST be able to do so. For we must, contra Kuhn, be able to
understand theories
that contradict each other in order to work with them, evaluate them,
and try
to improve them. But I would think that an attitude that actually
TOLERATES
contradiction may be too open. I think, on the contrary, that we
generally try
to eliminate contradictions and that this means that we do not really
tolerate
them. I do not deny that we often times believe that thoughts that
actually
contradict each other are true. But I think that we try to eliminate
the
contradiction once we recognize it. I also do not deny that there are
contradictions that we find difficult to eliminate, and others
(especially in
new theories) that we may decide to put up with for the time being
while we
investigate a theory. If this is what you mean, then no problem. Or
if you mean
that we tolerate contradictions in some looser sense of the term,
then no
problem. But I would be sharply opposed to the idea that an open mind
should
tolerate contradictions in the sense of (`P & ~P).
[end]
</BODY>
</HTML>

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Messages

Yahoo! My Yahoo! Mail
	Sign In New User? Sign Up
		Tech - Groups - Help

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Best of Y! Groups

Messages