As researchers, we often need to be continuously pushing the limits of knowledge, often exploring ideas that are in conflict with existing beliefs. In this process, we sometimes end up encountering or even adopting some entrenched mindsets that act as serious dampeners to the pursuit. As a result, we typically end up slighted, frustrated or bruised so much so that it can seriously take us into the path of cynicism.
Hence, it helps to try to analyse some entrenched mindsets so that we can make a start in understanding them as well as help coming out of deadlocks created by them. So here is a tentative list of entrenched mindsets that I often encounter (at least one of which I've myself adopted in the past, and which I try hard not to get into, nowadays):
The truth lies "out there"
This is a very common mindset that is prevalent in India and other "third-world" countries -- basically those that were subject to colonial occupation in the not-too-distant past. Basically, it believes with utmost conviction that the local population is incapable of discovering any objective truth and anything of consequence is necessarily done "out there" in "those" countries, full of smart people.
Recently I was having a conversation with a professional acquaintance about some topic in graph theory, where I was speculating about some properties of a class of graphs. He seemed interested, and then said, "Interesting! If you had been a great scientist, perhaps you could have made them into conjectures and published them."
I did not have the heart to tell him that I didn't think that one needed to be a "great scientist" to make conjectures. (To "publish" it is a different story altogether.. heh heh.. :-) But I know that it would be a futile endeavour to go down that path. For, no matter how good theories we develop, it would not elicit much more than a "Hmm.. interesting.." remark in return, unless it came from "out there".
The truth lies "back there"
This entrenched mindset perhaps has its roots in the de-colonization movements that sought to restore the erstwhile colonies, their original identities and instill a sense of self-respect among its population.
Unfortunately, some extreme aspects of these still linger along, giving rise to entrenched beliefs that basically says: every possible idea on just about anything, has already been addressed by our elders and written in "the scriptures." Be it a question of economics, mathematics, science, politics, whatever -- it is all there, in "the scriptures."
It is again extremely difficult, if not impossible to work alongside such mindsets.
I am the boss
This kind of entrenched mindsets typically expect the other party to practice obedience, because the current social ordering has made him/her the boss and the other party the subordinate. This usually means that the other party is expected to be subservient and never question any idea, nor offer any new ideas of their own.
Argumentation by these mindsets are typically an exercise in confirmation bias.
I am the victim
This kind of entrenched mindset is the opposite of the above. Here, the person fervently believes that s/he is a victim due to his/her gender, ethnicity, religion, language, economic background or whatever. The person is perennially suspicious of everyone -- especially their bosses or "superiors" in the social ordering. Any talk by the boss is typically over-analysed and just about everything they say is taken as oblique references to themselves, seeking to "put them in their place."
This mindset is actually much more powerful than the "I am the boss" mindset. In peace-time societies, it is so powerful that political manipulators often consciously use this "I am the victim" tactic to gain support or mould opinions in their favour.
Ultra-liberalism
This kind of mindsets typically view research as a means of "liberation" from the "oppressive regimes" of rules and regulations that exist in society. Typically, these mindsets are ultra-sensitive to any kinds of rules -- be they attendance requirements for classes, or compliance requirements for quality certification, or office timings, or parking regulations or network firewall configurations. (I was myself pretty much of this kind when I was a student, which I try hard to keep away from, nowadays.)
The final state of ultra-liberalism is a state of anarchy, where there are absolutely no rules for anything. Unfortunately, the "freedom" provided by anarchy lasts for maybe a few seconds before stuff like muscle and the gun take over.
Freedom enthusiasts should argue against bad rules, rather than ask for a blanket ban on rules itself. The latter sounds quite similar to the "Truth is subjective" assertion -- if we have to "ban" all rules, then should not the ban itself be banned? :-)
"The community decides what is truth"
The above is actually a sentence that I've heard from a professional acquaintance! These mindsets are characteristic of the herd mentality that is innate in all of us. These mindsets are extremely suspicious of any idea, unless the "community" thinks it is worthwhile.
The favourite quote of this mindset is: "The road less travelled is less travelled for a reason." Which basically translates to saying: "Don't take the road less travelled, because the community travelled on the other road."
The road less travelled may be less travelled for a reason; and sensibility lies in trying to understand what the reason is, instead of deciding right at that time, not to take the road less travelled.
When encountered with such quotes, I often take up another quote by Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that the world cannot be changed by a few people; indeed that's the only way that the world has ever changed."
But of course, that is not without its caveats as well.. :-)
Truth is beyond the controlling grasp of individuals and communities alike. Once upon a time, the "community" believed in some models with such conviction that it actively vilified and persecuted people like Galileo or Socrates who held conflicting notions. Fortunately, the researcher today need not fear the fate of Socrates; but community dynamics are still the same as ever.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Friday, November 06, 2009
Analyze this! An epistemological dilemma
Some nights ago, I had a dream in which a friend of mine comes to my home and lives with us for some days. One one of these days, he finds a lot of junk lying around in the utility area and starts tinkering around with them. I am intrigued about what he is up to, but he does not reveal anything.
A couple of days later, he conjures up a device that essentially does reverse osmosis and softens the notoriously hard water that we get in our water pipes.
I look at the device in astonishment and realize that much of the stuff required to build it were already lying around in the house. I take a closer look at the device and before long I've reverse engineered it. Later, I'm feeling sullen, thinking why didn't I think of this myself.
The dream basically made me very sad, and I woke up essentially believing that I'm growing old.
But then later on, it stuck me -- my friend had thought of this idea in *my* dream! While *I* in my own dream, had no idea what my friend was up to, and could only think of building this device by reverse engineering what he already did -- it was still *my* dream!
So, did I get this idea or did I not?
A couple of days later, he conjures up a device that essentially does reverse osmosis and softens the notoriously hard water that we get in our water pipes.
I look at the device in astonishment and realize that much of the stuff required to build it were already lying around in the house. I take a closer look at the device and before long I've reverse engineered it. Later, I'm feeling sullen, thinking why didn't I think of this myself.
The dream basically made me very sad, and I woke up essentially believing that I'm growing old.
But then later on, it stuck me -- my friend had thought of this idea in *my* dream! While *I* in my own dream, had no idea what my friend was up to, and could only think of building this device by reverse engineering what he already did -- it was still *my* dream!
So, did I get this idea or did I not?
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Enjoy your coffee..
Got this nice anectode in my mailbox today. Source unknown:
A group of alumni, highly established in their careers, got together to visit their old university professor.
Conversation soon turned into complaints about stress in work and life.
Offering his guests coffee, the professor went to the kitchen and returned with a large pot of coffee and an assortment of cups porcelain, plastic, glass, crystal, some plain looking, some expensive, some exquisite - telling them to help themselves to hot coffee.
When all the students had a cup of coffee in hand, the professor said: 'If you noticed, all the nice looking expensive cups were taken up, leaving behind the plain and cheap ones.. While it is but normal for you to want only the best for yourselves, that is the source of your problems and stress. What all of you really wanted was coffee, not the cup, but you consciously went for the best cups and were eyeing each other's cups.
Now if life is coffee, then the jobs, money and position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold and contain Life, but the quality of Life doesn't change. Some times, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee in it.'
Don't let the cups drive you.. Enjoy the coffee instead
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Rationality versus Intelligence
We often confuse between the terms "rationality" and "intelligence" and tend to equate the two. When someone says, "It is only rational" -- it is often construed to mean that the act was somehow "intelligent."
I think rationality and intelligence are two different things. Let me define each and explain their difference with a motivating example.
Rationality is the basis for our autonomous behaviour. Rationality is made up of two elements -- a "self-interest" function and an ability for "utility maximization."
Self-interest is defined by our needs and desires. There is a self-interest in all of us based on our need to survive (roti, kapda aur makaan). In addition, there could be self-interest based on our desires (desire for wealth, desire for adventure, desire for knowledge, desire for social prestige, etc.)
Utility maximization is our ability to choose one or more actions from a set of possible options, that helps us realize our self-interest to the best possible extent. Hence for someone who values social-prestige over (say) wealth, lobbying for a glorifying award and the resultant applause, is rational as compared to pursuing an option that pays a lot but without applause.
Intelligence on the other hand, is our ability to build mental-models that explain the world around us. By definition, all mental models are incomplete -- but models that explain more and for longer are considered to be better than mental models that are valid only for bounded universes or for short time periods.
The accuracy with which we build our mental models determines how well we are able to identify options available to us for utility maximization. Without good mental models, we may not even be aware of some option available to us, or of the hidden costs in choosing an option that is apparently attractive at face value.
(On a side note, this definition of intelligence -- as our ability to build mental models -- completely discounts the veracity of logic and reasoning based metrics like IQ, to "measure" intelligence. Logic and reasoning are necessary for building mental models, but are by no means sufficient conditions.)
I think rationality and intelligence are two different things. Let me define each and explain their difference with a motivating example.
Rationality is the basis for our autonomous behaviour. Rationality is made up of two elements -- a "self-interest" function and an ability for "utility maximization."
Self-interest is defined by our needs and desires. There is a self-interest in all of us based on our need to survive (roti, kapda aur makaan). In addition, there could be self-interest based on our desires (desire for wealth, desire for adventure, desire for knowledge, desire for social prestige, etc.)
Utility maximization is our ability to choose one or more actions from a set of possible options, that helps us realize our self-interest to the best possible extent. Hence for someone who values social-prestige over (say) wealth, lobbying for a glorifying award and the resultant applause, is rational as compared to pursuing an option that pays a lot but without applause.
Intelligence on the other hand, is our ability to build mental-models that explain the world around us. By definition, all mental models are incomplete -- but models that explain more and for longer are considered to be better than mental models that are valid only for bounded universes or for short time periods.
The accuracy with which we build our mental models determines how well we are able to identify options available to us for utility maximization. Without good mental models, we may not even be aware of some option available to us, or of the hidden costs in choosing an option that is apparently attractive at face value.
(On a side note, this definition of intelligence -- as our ability to build mental models -- completely discounts the veracity of logic and reasoning based metrics like IQ, to "measure" intelligence. Logic and reasoning are necessary for building mental models, but are by no means sufficient conditions.)
*~*~*~*~*~*
Here is an example scenario that distinguishes between rational behaviour and intelligent behaviour.
Consider that it is lunch time at the office and the cafeteria has just opened for lunch. You are very hungry and it is only rational for you, to rush to the food counter. Also, the sooner you get to the food counter, the better the chances that you will get piping hot food that not only satiates your hunger, but also tastes good.
So a scenario where everyone rushes to the food counter and crowds and jostles and muscle-around with one another is a perfectly rational behaviour -- as far as each individual is concerned.
On the other hand, if people automatically stand in queue at the lunch counter (without anyone policing them), this is indicative of intelligent behaviour. In this case, everyone has built a mental model that explains not only their own intentions, but of the intentions of all others coming to eat at the cafeteria. Their mental models have shown that there would be a conflict of interest when everyone pursued their intentions without bothering about the others. Their mental models would also have shown that such a conflict would result in a much more diminished payoff for everyone. Finally each of the mental models would have independently come to the "equilibrium" condition that standing in a queue is the best option for utility maximization.
Note that this equilibrium is possible only when everyone adopts a mental model that accommodates everyone else in the picture.
Suppose there were to be a small set of people who simply cannot acknowledge the presence of others or who cannot understand that others have self-interest too. These people would find it totally irrational to stand in queue and wait for their turn -- when piping hot food is right in front of them. Now when all such people rush towards the food, the mental models of all others break. For any given person, standing in line makes sense only as long as others stand in line as well. If there were only one rational-but-stupid person like the above, perhaps he could have been muscled back to conform to the queue. But when several folks display this rational-but-stupid behaviour, there is no incentive for the rest of the folks to stand in line either.
Here is an example scenario that distinguishes between rational behaviour and intelligent behaviour.
Consider that it is lunch time at the office and the cafeteria has just opened for lunch. You are very hungry and it is only rational for you, to rush to the food counter. Also, the sooner you get to the food counter, the better the chances that you will get piping hot food that not only satiates your hunger, but also tastes good.
So a scenario where everyone rushes to the food counter and crowds and jostles and muscle-around with one another is a perfectly rational behaviour -- as far as each individual is concerned.
On the other hand, if people automatically stand in queue at the lunch counter (without anyone policing them), this is indicative of intelligent behaviour. In this case, everyone has built a mental model that explains not only their own intentions, but of the intentions of all others coming to eat at the cafeteria. Their mental models have shown that there would be a conflict of interest when everyone pursued their intentions without bothering about the others. Their mental models would also have shown that such a conflict would result in a much more diminished payoff for everyone. Finally each of the mental models would have independently come to the "equilibrium" condition that standing in a queue is the best option for utility maximization.
Note that this equilibrium is possible only when everyone adopts a mental model that accommodates everyone else in the picture.
Suppose there were to be a small set of people who simply cannot acknowledge the presence of others or who cannot understand that others have self-interest too. These people would find it totally irrational to stand in queue and wait for their turn -- when piping hot food is right in front of them. Now when all such people rush towards the food, the mental models of all others break. For any given person, standing in line makes sense only as long as others stand in line as well. If there were only one rational-but-stupid person like the above, perhaps he could have been muscled back to conform to the queue. But when several folks display this rational-but-stupid behaviour, there is no incentive for the rest of the folks to stand in line either.
*~*~*~*~*~*
I think voluntary formation of orderly structures like queues, by autonomous agents, is a clear indicator of intelligence in the population. It shows that not only are the actors rational, they are also intelligent in the sense of building mental models. A population that rushes and jostles at bus-stops and railway stations is sub-critical in its intelligence than a population that automatically snaps to an orderly structure.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Common misconceptions about objective truth theory
My previous post that addressed the "objective" nature of truth has expectedly raised some common questions. Here I address some:
Does truth exists without an observer?
There is this saying that, "If a tree falls in the jungle and no one sees it, has it really fallen?" Or the more tongue-in-cheek version: "If a man speaks something in a jungle and no woman hears it, is he still wrong?"
The idea behind this rhetoric is to say that truth -- as is the case with beauty, lies in the eye of the observer.
Well, if this were to be the case, then there would be no need for any Sherlock Holmes, and indeed no need for any researcher. For investigators and researchers are meant to discover events and happenings that have occurred without necessarily being observed. If a murder happens and no one witnessed it, surely, we would not say, it didn't happen at all. The idea that something is real only if it has been observed by us is too narcissistic to be even taken seriously by researchers.
Fear of dogma
When I assert that truth is objective, one of the biggest rejoinders I get is that I'm somehow "closing" minds and encouraging dogmatic worldviews.
Ah, no. I've only asserted that truth is objective; I've never said anything about what is the objective truth. Is capitalism the objective truth? Is democracy the objective truth? Is a "benevolent dictatorship" the objective truth? Or is the objective truth, just 42? I don't know!
And if anyone says they know what the entire objective truths are, well, they're fibbing.
The nature of Truth (also called Reality) is so elusive that it is said that we only hit upon tiny little bits of it once in a while. And this is usually in the form of experience -- a flash of insight when things fall into place suddenly, or even some form of a resonance with a hidden rhythm.
So, do objective truths lead to dogmatic worldviews? Only if we are stupid enough.
Worldviews versus objective truths
I received one other rejoinder in the context of teaching: If you provoke one student to study, it may work, but the same provocation in another student may lead him into depression or worse. So, what is true for the first student is not true for the second student. So, truth is subjective.
This example is slightly complicated because, the "objects" in this contexts are the subjects themselves.
In any case, truth does not become subjective in this regard. The different reactions by the two students are because of their different worldviews or mental models and how provocation fits into it (or not). The subjectivity appears because of the worldviews, which are anyway subjective by definition. It does not change the objective nature of the truth in whatever was being taught. For instance, if the teacher made a provocative statement and said, "I dare you to prove that the number of prime numbers is infinite!!" It may make the first one to take up the challenge, and the second one to whimper and get depressed. Regardless of what one does, it does not change the truth about the infinite cardinality of prime numbers.
The objective truth in this episode (concerning teaching) is that: different people have different worldviews and so different strategies may have to be used to enhance learning.
Does truth exists without an observer?
There is this saying that, "If a tree falls in the jungle and no one sees it, has it really fallen?" Or the more tongue-in-cheek version: "If a man speaks something in a jungle and no woman hears it, is he still wrong?"
The idea behind this rhetoric is to say that truth -- as is the case with beauty, lies in the eye of the observer.
Well, if this were to be the case, then there would be no need for any Sherlock Holmes, and indeed no need for any researcher. For investigators and researchers are meant to discover events and happenings that have occurred without necessarily being observed. If a murder happens and no one witnessed it, surely, we would not say, it didn't happen at all. The idea that something is real only if it has been observed by us is too narcissistic to be even taken seriously by researchers.
Fear of dogma
When I assert that truth is objective, one of the biggest rejoinders I get is that I'm somehow "closing" minds and encouraging dogmatic worldviews.
Ah, no. I've only asserted that truth is objective; I've never said anything about what is the objective truth. Is capitalism the objective truth? Is democracy the objective truth? Is a "benevolent dictatorship" the objective truth? Or is the objective truth, just 42? I don't know!
And if anyone says they know what the entire objective truths are, well, they're fibbing.
The nature of Truth (also called Reality) is so elusive that it is said that we only hit upon tiny little bits of it once in a while. And this is usually in the form of experience -- a flash of insight when things fall into place suddenly, or even some form of a resonance with a hidden rhythm.
So, do objective truths lead to dogmatic worldviews? Only if we are stupid enough.
Worldviews versus objective truths
I received one other rejoinder in the context of teaching: If you provoke one student to study, it may work, but the same provocation in another student may lead him into depression or worse. So, what is true for the first student is not true for the second student. So, truth is subjective.
This example is slightly complicated because, the "objects" in this contexts are the subjects themselves.
In any case, truth does not become subjective in this regard. The different reactions by the two students are because of their different worldviews or mental models and how provocation fits into it (or not). The subjectivity appears because of the worldviews, which are anyway subjective by definition. It does not change the objective nature of the truth in whatever was being taught. For instance, if the teacher made a provocative statement and said, "I dare you to prove that the number of prime numbers is infinite!!" It may make the first one to take up the challenge, and the second one to whimper and get depressed. Regardless of what one does, it does not change the truth about the infinite cardinality of prime numbers.
The objective truth in this episode (concerning teaching) is that: different people have different worldviews and so different strategies may have to be used to enhance learning.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Essential knowledge for researchers
In my professional circles, shocks and astonishments never seem to cease. After having spent so many years in this field, I still occasionally come across incredible statements from folks who we thought to be serious researchers, it never fails to give me a deep sense of insecurity. Insecurity not because I could be "defeated" by these folks in any sense of the term, but insecurity because these folks are supposed to be thought leaders..
Here are some examples:
"In research circles, the community decides what is truth; and everyone should follow it."
"Social acceptance is the only metric that determines the worth of a researcher."
"Truth is subjective, and it has been proven!"
I will not even try to start deconstructing the above statements -- the process is too painful, with all the adrenalin rush and the feelings of panic and doom.
Alternatively, it is perhaps better to foster the positives, than fight the negatives. So, here are what I believe are some essential knowledge every researcher ought to have. No excuses.
Truth is not faith:
Research is essentially a quest for truth -- about some issue. This process requires us to understand what we mean by truth and how can we evaluate one result against another.
We often find it convenient to equate truth to a (subjective) belief or faith. It is quite common to see refrains like, "Well, we have faith in God and you scientists have faith in science -- there is no difference. Science is just another religion."
Whether science is another "religion" (whatever religion means) or not, I don't know. But truth certainly is not faith. If I jump out of the terrace of a building, I will fall down -- regardless of whether I have faith in gravity or not. Sure, one may philosophize and say that there may be some other parallel universe, where gravity does not exist, and so on. Maybe so. But the statement that "In this universe, on this earth, in the timespan of today +/- a couple of hundreds of million years, if I jump out of a tall structure, I will fall down," is still true.
Hence truth is something that holds even when you don't believe in it.
Truth is objective -- i.e. independent of the observer:
Another common refrain is that truth is subjective. In other words, "What is truth for me need not be truth for you." And in the same vein, "A civilized society is one that permits anyone to practice anything that that is true for them."
This statement stems very closely from the "truth = faith" argument. The genesis of the above statement is actually from noble intentions -- of encouraging a multi-religious, multi-ethnic society to co-exist. This assumes of course that "religion = faith", which I disagree with, incidentally.
Regardless of that, the statement is seriously flawed. And for researchers to adopt it, dangerous for the society at large.
If you say, "Truth is subjective -- we all can have our own versions of truth" -- should I accept this statement? Is it not up to me to accept the statement?
In fact, if you assert "Truth is subjective" -- you are asserting it as an objective truism that everyone ought to accept! And contradicting yourself in the process!
Similarly, if "truth is subjective and everyone should be allowed to practice their version of truth" -- then going by that very statement, you should allow me to impose or hammer down the following idea on you that: "truth is objective and everyone ought to know it."
The statement: "Truth is subjective" -- far from encouraging a pluralist society where people respect one another and "agree to disagree", etc., can actually breed intolerance, very easily. If someone believes that God has appeared to him and told him to kill everyone who does not agree with his version of God, then that is his subjective truth. The society will have to tolerate him and allow him to practice and propagate his intolerant version of subjective truth.
Belief is subjective, our mental models may be subjective, our intuitions may be subjective; but truth is objective.
Ideas versus People:
Most of us lead our daily lives, deeply entrenched within social contexts like family, workplace, friends, etc. In a social context, individual identity becomes very important for each person. And often, our identities are defined based on the ideas that we hold -- rather believe -- to be true. When our deeply-held ideas are challenged, it is quite natural to feel that our entire identity is being challenged.
Researchers unfortunately cannot afford the luxury of having deeply entrenched, unchallengeable identities. The very definition of research entails a quest for truth, that needs to question ideas that have been deeply entrenched in our psyche, perhaps for centuries.
The best way to go about this quest is to separate ideas from the person. This is something that I keep repeating again and again ad nauseaum, to my students. Students in my lab are taught the maxim that, I'm ok, you're ok, but our ideas may not be ok.
Research has to be dispassionate and the focus of argumentation should be on ideas, rather than people. Dispassionate and critical argumentation is a general problem-solving skill, that not is not just required by researchers, but by professionals and the society in general. But whether the larger society learns to separate ideas from the person or not, researchers had better learn it early in their careers.
The journey is the goal:
I know it sounds cliched.. but researchers better realize this. Else, they can only look forward to a life of agony -- not enough money, ridicule from family members, people with half-baked ideas giving them thoughtful "advices" on just about everything, etc.
You take up research only because you like exploration, and are just not satisfied with the kind of knowledge you have. If you take up research because "PhD is a necessary degree for me to _________ [fill in whatever]" it is going to be one big agony.
This is of course, not to say that "money does not matter" or to imply that researchers are "cheap labour" and are available to be short-changed. A researcher may hit a monetary jackpot (or even a social jackpot like the Nobel prize); but that cannot and should not be an incentive for taking up research. Taking up research in order to win the Nobel prize is somewhat like buying lottery tickets in order to make money.
On a parallel note, educators should take enough care to instill in their students, a sense of wonder and explorative curiosity about nature -- rather than simply pointing to "successful" folks (award winners, rich people, etc.) and telling the students to "be like them." (By nature, I don't just mean flowers, rivers, etc. but just about anything -- be it algorithms, data-structures, number theory, protein structures, etc.)
Here are some examples:
"In research circles, the community decides what is truth; and everyone should follow it."
"Social acceptance is the only metric that determines the worth of a researcher."
"Truth is subjective, and it has been proven!"
I will not even try to start deconstructing the above statements -- the process is too painful, with all the adrenalin rush and the feelings of panic and doom.
Alternatively, it is perhaps better to foster the positives, than fight the negatives. So, here are what I believe are some essential knowledge every researcher ought to have. No excuses.
Truth is not faith:
Research is essentially a quest for truth -- about some issue. This process requires us to understand what we mean by truth and how can we evaluate one result against another.
We often find it convenient to equate truth to a (subjective) belief or faith. It is quite common to see refrains like, "Well, we have faith in God and you scientists have faith in science -- there is no difference. Science is just another religion."
Whether science is another "religion" (whatever religion means) or not, I don't know. But truth certainly is not faith. If I jump out of the terrace of a building, I will fall down -- regardless of whether I have faith in gravity or not. Sure, one may philosophize and say that there may be some other parallel universe, where gravity does not exist, and so on. Maybe so. But the statement that "In this universe, on this earth, in the timespan of today +/- a couple of hundreds of million years, if I jump out of a tall structure, I will fall down," is still true.
Hence truth is something that holds even when you don't believe in it.
Truth is objective -- i.e. independent of the observer:
Another common refrain is that truth is subjective. In other words, "What is truth for me need not be truth for you." And in the same vein, "A civilized society is one that permits anyone to practice anything that that is true for them."
This statement stems very closely from the "truth = faith" argument. The genesis of the above statement is actually from noble intentions -- of encouraging a multi-religious, multi-ethnic society to co-exist. This assumes of course that "religion = faith", which I disagree with, incidentally.
Regardless of that, the statement is seriously flawed. And for researchers to adopt it, dangerous for the society at large.
If you say, "Truth is subjective -- we all can have our own versions of truth" -- should I accept this statement? Is it not up to me to accept the statement?
In fact, if you assert "Truth is subjective" -- you are asserting it as an objective truism that everyone ought to accept! And contradicting yourself in the process!
Similarly, if "truth is subjective and everyone should be allowed to practice their version of truth" -- then going by that very statement, you should allow me to impose or hammer down the following idea on you that: "truth is objective and everyone ought to know it."
The statement: "Truth is subjective" -- far from encouraging a pluralist society where people respect one another and "agree to disagree", etc., can actually breed intolerance, very easily. If someone believes that God has appeared to him and told him to kill everyone who does not agree with his version of God, then that is his subjective truth. The society will have to tolerate him and allow him to practice and propagate his intolerant version of subjective truth.
Belief is subjective, our mental models may be subjective, our intuitions may be subjective; but truth is objective.
Ideas versus People:
Most of us lead our daily lives, deeply entrenched within social contexts like family, workplace, friends, etc. In a social context, individual identity becomes very important for each person. And often, our identities are defined based on the ideas that we hold -- rather believe -- to be true. When our deeply-held ideas are challenged, it is quite natural to feel that our entire identity is being challenged.
Researchers unfortunately cannot afford the luxury of having deeply entrenched, unchallengeable identities. The very definition of research entails a quest for truth, that needs to question ideas that have been deeply entrenched in our psyche, perhaps for centuries.
The best way to go about this quest is to separate ideas from the person. This is something that I keep repeating again and again ad nauseaum, to my students. Students in my lab are taught the maxim that, I'm ok, you're ok, but our ideas may not be ok.
Research has to be dispassionate and the focus of argumentation should be on ideas, rather than people. Dispassionate and critical argumentation is a general problem-solving skill, that not is not just required by researchers, but by professionals and the society in general. But whether the larger society learns to separate ideas from the person or not, researchers had better learn it early in their careers.
The journey is the goal:
I know it sounds cliched.. but researchers better realize this. Else, they can only look forward to a life of agony -- not enough money, ridicule from family members, people with half-baked ideas giving them thoughtful "advices" on just about everything, etc.
You take up research only because you like exploration, and are just not satisfied with the kind of knowledge you have. If you take up research because "PhD is a necessary degree for me to _________ [fill in whatever]" it is going to be one big agony.
This is of course, not to say that "money does not matter" or to imply that researchers are "cheap labour" and are available to be short-changed. A researcher may hit a monetary jackpot (or even a social jackpot like the Nobel prize); but that cannot and should not be an incentive for taking up research. Taking up research in order to win the Nobel prize is somewhat like buying lottery tickets in order to make money.
On a parallel note, educators should take enough care to instill in their students, a sense of wonder and explorative curiosity about nature -- rather than simply pointing to "successful" folks (award winners, rich people, etc.) and telling the students to "be like them." (By nature, I don't just mean flowers, rivers, etc. but just about anything -- be it algorithms, data-structures, number theory, protein structures, etc.)
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Perspectives
Truth cannot be captured in its entirety by language, art, gestures or any form of human communication. Truth spills out of the rim of every cup..
but
Truth alone triumphs.
So there we are. Our lives are controlled by something that is elusive and spills out of the rim of every cup.. And it is supreme.
So, we can't give up on our curiosities to understand our world better -- but it is a pursuit that is doomed from the start -- we can never understand our world completely. Yet, we cannot stop pursuing..
So... life is endless agony. Or, endless excitement.
Take your pick.
Perspectives.
but
Truth alone triumphs.
So there we are. Our lives are controlled by something that is elusive and spills out of the rim of every cup.. And it is supreme.
So, we can't give up on our curiosities to understand our world better -- but it is a pursuit that is doomed from the start -- we can never understand our world completely. Yet, we cannot stop pursuing..
So... life is endless agony. Or, endless excitement.
Take your pick.
Perspectives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
