How do we know the truer theory?

‘Into Me See’ series of essays

By Graham Little

These essays summarise and extend the conclusions from the intellectual position in the book The Origin of Consciousness. Excluding this work, there is no general theory of psychology, no general theory of knowledge integrated with a general theory of psychology, no general theory of cause. This means that all historical lines of thinking have failed. Our options are to seek to revise what has been previously offered, or find a new start point. Near forty years ago my research lead me to conclude that everything able to be said had been said, every wrinkle possible had been explored.  I judged further re-treading the historical lines of thinking would prove fruitless.

We need a new start point if we are to fully understand who we are, where we came from, what is religion, what moves us, is there a God, do we have a spirit, what is science, what is truth, do ideas exist, and the other ‘big’ questions. I began by building a new social science methodology, applied it to the system ‘person in their environment’ then interpreted the resulting theory.

I do not have opinions on intellectual issues, what is offered is not ‘opinion’ but conclusions. I believe that truth and verisimilitude are not found in opinion or belief, but in methodology and argument. Where I do apply a judgement unsupported by method or argument, making it an ‘opinion’ or a ‘belief’, I aim to make that clear.

After reading these essays I hope you will then read the book The Origin of Consciousness to fully understand yourself and others, why you are here, why you are as you are, and how to find spiritual fulfilment. Titles of the essays are listed in the menu to the right. The print copy of the book is here, print.

 “I would not give a fig for simplicity this side of complexity, but would give my right arm for simplicity the other side of complexity”. Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.  

In his book on the Mbuti Pygmy, Wayward Servants: The world of the African Pygmy, Colin Townsend described standing on a hill top with a Pygmy taking in the view. The Pygmy asked what the insects were.  It took Colin some minutes to work out the Pygmy was referring to the cattle grazing in a paddock several miles away. The Pygmy had limited experience outside the rain forest where visibility was measured in feet, not miles, and in his mind anything that small had to be insects.

 I have previously discussed ‘buy and burgle’, where people saw very different aspects of a house depending on their intention of buying or burgling it. We can understand this process by imagining a box of power point slides just behind our forehead. When we think ‘buy’ up pops that filter and we ‘see’ according to the filter, and we do not see things not consistent with the filter. For the Pygmy, his filter was ‘small things’, and his experience was that anything that small had to be insects, distance as a factor in seeing small things did not feature in his understanding. Although he quickly worked it out.

The box of power point frames is the structure of our psychology.  What is on each frame is our reality, our point of view in regard to the object in Reality we are observing. We have no choice as to the structure of how we perceive.  We do have a choice as to what is on each frame. We can refer to what is on a frame as our personal theory. Unlike in science, frequently our personal theories are not well researched, nor chosen with any real precision. We accept our personal theories as they are presented to us by our culture – by peers, parents, our siblings, schooling, and what swirls about us in our social circumstance. Tielhard de Chardin referred to the thought swirling about us as the nousphere, the sphere of (global) thought. We then develop and live within our culture, a particular part of the nousphere. I have previously questioned the casual way we assume our personal theories. I will explore this more fully later in the essay. For now leave you to reflect that if we reshape our personal attitudes how will that impact the nousphere within which our children are immersed? Can we deliberately reshape our cultural nousphere? And if we do, will that redirect humanity’s destiny?  But for now, back to the search for truth.

Any scientific theory is merely thoughts we use to look at some objects. The theory is constructed by reasonably tight rules. It is intended to be socially shared among other scientists. When many scientists share some particular point of view, a particularly theory, then it is referred to as the current paradigm.  We can regard a paradigm as a specific part of the nousphere within which the scientists live and work. So we can understand scientists as immersed in two aspects of the nousphere, their personal culture, and their scientific work culture which includes the paradigms on how they think about various aspects of Reality (quantum physics, for example, orientating minds to sub-atomic phenomena). 

Personal theory is psychologically equivalent to scientific theory. Both are ideas on a frame. Both are part of the person’s reality. Both orientate the person to their Reality. Also, and this is very important, both can become associated with emotion. Scientific theory is prone to the same failings as personal theory. Science can become as dogmatic as the views of a suicide bomber.   

Which leads to the question addressed in this essay, how to decide which theory is the best, which is truer, which has greater verisimilitude.

The answer to the question is in three parts. First, how do we decide which scientific theory is truer? Second, why is the theory in Origin the best theory available on us?  Finally, I will draw some conclusions on how we, personally, can and perhaps should be more aware and take more care with the thoughts we allow to shape our spirit.

In Origin I offer the following summary factors for judging which theory is the verisimilar theory, the truer theory.

No one factor provides an unassailable guide to truth.

Verification, falsification, debate and argument all have their place in deciding.  But eventually we must decide.

One list of factors is as follows.

1.      Verification, does it fit the facts?

2.      Falsification, can any of it be disproved? Remembering the point by Karl Popper that we can never prove the hypothesis all swans are white, but can disprove it by sighting one black swan.

3.      Accuracy, does it get the right answer?

4.      Practicality, does it work? Is it useful?

5.      Method, is it built by tools known to build congruence?

6.      ‘First things first’, is the reality well-grounded with prior issues resolved?

7.      Rule of relations, has imagination been used to test reality and distinguish Reality?

8.      Multiple opinions, do others agree? But note, because it is a majority judgment does not mean it is ‘right’ it is possible for 50,000 even 50,000,000 people to be wrong.

9.      Instinct, does it feel right? Using all our brain, instinct more than the conscious thought in mind.

10.  Insightful, is there a sense of insightfulness? Does it go where others have not gone before?

11.  Conservatism, does it integrate prior thought. Are old ideas retained merely due prejudices arising from borrowed knowledge built from prior experience?

12.  Challenge, are any of the thoughts emotionally unsettling as to cause rejection?

I repeat the opening, it bears repeating: There is no one factor that provides an unassailable guide to truth.

The point to stress is these are not techniques we apply that will tell us which is true and which not. They are tools to aid judgment. Truth cannot be found in applying a technique, it is only found in sound psychological process that enables accurate judgment (see the essay The structure of truth). The list above is merely a list of points of view for us to consider. From the blending of our insights we make our call.   

Method as spelled out in Origin is crucial. First things first is striving to ensure any theory brings to account underlying issues that could influence the theory or decision about the theory. A simple example is a business plan on the launch of a new product. The plan considers opposition products, pricing and market acceptance. The plan considers first things first, and is said to be ethically constructed, hence has intellectual integrity, bearing the appropriate relationship with the underlying issues. Seems remarkable that any such plan would be offered without considering those things.

In academic/intellectual endeavour the lack of first things first ethics is endemic. Further discussion of this point moves us beyond the scope of this essay. I refer you to chapter 3 in particular in Origin. Applying first things first is a means of quality control of intellectual outputs that would radically reduce the volume of academic output. Ensure that produced was worthy of reading and reflection.

Applying first things first is a method of quality control intrinsic to knowledge hence is independent of peer review which is known to have flaws.  There is argument that peer review offers statistical control that is by having peer review, percentage wise we are better off than doing nothing. Peer review as inadequate quality control. It will result in the proliferation of journals. The emergence of what is little more than vanity publishing where academics pay to have their paper published in what is claimed as a peer reviewed journal is merely another example of the fundamentally corrupt structure of peer review driven by the philosophy of ‘publish or perish’ (see also the appendix in Origin ‘Toward a better standard of judgment than peer review’).

The second point is the quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. Taking complexity, resolving it, creating simplicity on the other side.

A good question: What is simplicity?

Simplicity of a theory is relative to the complexity it resolves.  But there is also a universal standard, not easy to define, rather like minimalism in décor. A quality, we know when it is there, and know when it is not. Also, most people know their intellectual boundaries, but can still ‘see’ simplicity in some intellectual field, even if they do not quite understand it.

Simplicity is not parsimony. We can have an extraordinarily complex theory then have bits pruned off it making it more parsimonious, applying Ockham’s razor, without making the theory simpler. By analogy, in a recent ‘nearly lost’ rugby game the All Black coach, Steve Hansen noted he got the build-up to the test a bit wrong. He made it too complex, the minds of the players too cluttered. He said he needed to make it clearer and simpler. Not just a matter of pruning a few moves by applying parsimony. He needed bring it back to the simple form, so the structure in mind was direct, simple. The All Blacks at their best play a very simple game of rugby with immense skill and at enormous pace. Currently, globally, at their best there is no-one close to the All Blacks. Simplicity personified.

Assume we have a ‘complexity’. What does this mean? I suggest it means that when we think about it we cannot quite get our mind around it. When we think about it there are bits of it we miss, and when we organise those bits, then we lose sight of other bits. And if we come up with an idea on dealing with some part of the complexity, the idea does not explain other parts. In short, it is untidy in our mind, it lacks order and structure.

What then is the opposite of this? What is it to have simplicity? It may not mean we find it ‘simple’. We have a coherent conceptual structure. All the pieces of the complexity are fully bought to account within the structure. We can ‘see’ the complexity in the structure, and see how the structure gives rise to the complexity we started with. The structure orientates us in our reality, it fits, and we can see how and where other parts of our overall world view relate to and are integrated with the structure. We can deduce action from the structure knowing that all the elements of the complexity have been bought to account. In short, while the structure may demand we learn new ways of thinking and reasoning, when we do, we find we do have a clearer and more effective theory that does ‘make sense’ of the complexity.

Consider quantum physics. It gets excellent numerical results. Does it resolve understanding of the complexity of sub-atomic phenomena? No. Because it is mathematical we have to ‘interpret’ what the mathematics mean in Reality, since the theory is reality. There was a Solvay conference of the world’s leading physicists in Copenhagen in 1927 at which the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ was established and the world adopted probability. Not everyone agreed, notably Einstein. It was the result of his resistance to the interpretation that Einstein is afforded the quote ‘God does not play dice’. 

Probability is okay in reality, but to apply it to Reality...? It does not simplify things in Reality, it makes it more complex. It is harder than ever to get one’s mind about it. Newtonian ‘marbles’ are much easier to understand unfortunately while easier to conceptualize, they do not get a good answer.  

Where does this leave quantum mechanics? In Origin I propose two overriding factors in our search for congruence between reality and Reality. First, getting the right answer. Second, an apt conceptualisation of the mechanisms giving definite insight into what is happening. With quantum mechanics we have the first, but I question the second. In Origin I suggested a thought experiment to establish how probability formulations circumvent mechanistic understanding and enable correct answer but offer no insight into what is happening. By implication, to ‘interpret’ what is happening from the equations is stretching the mathematics too far.

Then what do we need to do to seek ‘truer’ theory?

The process of judging what is truer can only be psychological. Making best use of all we know on anything demands we look at it from many points of view. We marshal all we know by attentively working through the twelve factors above, carefully weighing the theory in regard each factor in turn.

When done, then go to the beach, or to whatever place makes you relaxed and peaceful. Forget it! Actively forget it. Then, a few days or weeks later review your analysis. Then forget it again! Then come back to it gently, take it in slowly and allow it to just rest in mind, and ask: Does it feel right? What overall is it telling me? By reflecting on it by different points of view you have ordered your knowledge, prepared your brain. Search for instinct, since instinct is your brain speaking to you about what you know that you did not know you knew. Insight only comes to the prepared brain.

The easy decisions are those where instincts, the sense of something, is aligned with intellect. If they are not aligned, if there remains that queasy feeling that something not quite right, then if you are experienced go with your gut. If you judge yourself not experienced, then work it through again. This time using an experienced sounding board, someone supportive but objective, friendly but detached, gentle but tough.   

In the end you must decide what you think is correct. Your judgment! Accepting the current viewpoint or paradigm is not your judgment, it is accepting the judgment of someone else.

What happens when the process above is applied to the theory in Origin? The worksheet is below, and I have scored each factor on a scale of 1-10, 10 high. I have also scored Freudian theory for a comparison. I do not imply Freudian theory be taken seriously, merely use it to illustrate the process.

Factor	Assessment of Origin theory	Rating	Freud
1.      Verification, does it fit the facts?	It accounts for all aspects of human psychology and output in sensible priority order.	7	1
2.      Is it falsifiable?	Fully. But there are as yet no issues that disprove the theory.	10	2
3.      Accuracy, does it get the right answer?	It fits the facts as best understood. It also resolves issues not addressed by any other theory.	7	4
4.      Practicality, does it work? Is it useful?	It is easy to understand and use, although different from all that has gone before.	7	4
5.      Method, is it built by tools known to build congruence?	Yes. It offers a conceptual diagram of the mechanism in the system person in their environment.	10	1
6.      ‘First things first’, is the reality well-grounded with prior issues resolved?	Yes, the theory is ethically constructed. Contains theories of knowledge and cause, and is fully reflexive.	10	1
7.      Rule of relations, has imagination been used to test reality and distinguish Reality?	Yes. It makes extensive, appropriate use of thought experiment.	10	1
8.      Multiple opinions, do others agree?	Minimal as yet... but people are beginning to pay regard.	3	8
9.      Instinct, does it feel right?	Yes, it is intuitive.	8	2
10.  Insightful, is there a sense of insightfulness? Does it go where others have not gone before?	Yes. Examples: A theory of mental health and the judgment of mental illness as an erosion of mental health. Accounts for the evolution of consciousness, development of the neurological capacity to create ideas, and the application of ideas in survival so accounting for human dominance in this eco-system.	9	2
11.  Conservatism, does it integrate prior thought.	Yes. Historical theory has been built on valid insights it people, successfully accounts for historical insights and integrates them.	10	2
12.  Challenge, are any of the thoughts emotionally unsettling as to cause rejection?	No. In fact it extends psychology into areas not previously accessible to psychology theory, such as the nature of science, the validity of quantum physics, and the nature of time. It	7	7

The theory scores 98 out of 120, 82%. Freudian theory (33%) loses out in that it does not integrate prior thinking, it fails to account for knowledge or cause, or for its own existence, and it seriously loses out as regards the weak methodology used to create it.

Does this make the theory in Origin right? No, but it makes it the best we have right now! The theory in Origin is the verisimilar theory.

A great lack in the world is we do not have a balanced, reasoned theory of us, who we are, where we came from, how we work, etc. Too much and too often questions of reason ...such as have we evolved, and if so how... are confused with question of faith. We will never integrate reason, one of our primary qualities, with faith another of our primary qualities unless we separate the two. Both reason and faith are crucial qualities defining what it is to be human. We will not advance as humans without successfully separating the two, and then integrating the two into the fullness of our existence.

So much for science.

What of our personal theories? Do we need determine truth? Do we need invest effort in determining the ideas we allow to shape what we do and feel, that end up defining who we? If determining the verisimilar reality in science requires such effort should we invest similar effort determining our own Reality? If so where do we start?

This is where our values come into play. I will not assume values for you, so I will offer the questions in the first person, with the response on the right. I will not try and identify all possible questions, and my questions may not be the same as yours...I merely offer some of mine to illustrate the process.

 

How do I want to be perceived?	Assertive, intelligent, reflective, personable, self-contained.
How do I want to treat people?	With consideration and respect.
How do I want to see people treated?	With consideration and respect.
Do I seek my spiritual fulfilment?	Yes. I want my life to add up to something.
Will I allow everyone else to seek their spiritual fulfilment?	Yes, and in seeking my fulfilment I must not restrict others in their search for theirs.
Do I think the environment important?	Yes, but not at the expense of people.  We need find balance.
Do I think everyone is equal?	Yes, no-one socially above me no-one below.
Do I think we should all have the same amount of money?	No. I do not believe in forced financial equality, but do think modern inequality is too much to be sustainable. I believe effort should be rewarded.
Do I think people have a right to their own views?	Yes, but people need challenged when their position is unreasoned. If people unreasoned and unwilling to reflect, I will walk away and not bother with them. If not soulful for me, I decline to do it.

 

I think the above illustrates the nature and tenor of the analysis.

So what is the point?

In science there is a clear and definite target. Congruence of reality and Reality. Hence any process of judgment of the truthfulness of any theory, any reality or idea, has criteria against which we measure it. Reality. When it comes to our personal theories, personal ideas we will allow influence us, the measure of their success is our values.   

Every idea I select and allow to influence me is judged against the values I hold important to me. For every idea the question is: Does this idea enable thought and feeling consistent with my values? If not I discard it, if so, I consolidate it but also ensuring it is consistent with ideas I may hold on other topics. That is I seek balance and integration of my thinking across my whole world view. It would also be quite simple to add ratings to this approach that is rating how any idea enabled the values to which I aspire, then rate any actual behaviour as to the extent we live out the ideas. I define integrity as the congruence of what we say we believe, our values, with what we do. Thus rating what we do against our values is rating our integrity.

Having made my decision about some ideas, I then allow them to shape my responses. I manage my integrity by accepting feedback on how others see me and then reassessing the ideas that enabled that conduct. Occasionally, I will review my values that is the set of principles I accept as the foundation of my existence.

I and I alone have access to my mind. Only via my mind do I access my spirit. I can alter the ideas I use with self-discipline and by paying attention to my mind and what pops into it. I can also assess the ideas by how I feel when particular circumstances occur which in turn trigger responses and habits. If some habit is inconsistent with my values, I will think about it and aim to moderate it. But any habit will always remain as a potential response. I can depower the response by actively reducing the emotions associated with the idea, so reducing the force of the response. 

The theory in Origin states clearly that what we think, our world view, or thought, is a primary driver of both mood and conduct. Second, if we choose we can alter what we think, learn new ways of thinking and enable them to shape us.

The crucial issue is not what we are looking at, but the ideas we choose to ‘look’. The responsibility for what we use to look is ours and ours alone.

Humanity’s future lies in the choices we make today. We need begin by holding ourselves to account against the standard of our own values.

Not politics, nor religion, but personal commitment of people to the integrity between what we say we believe and what we do. All backed by polite, gracious, but determined intolerance for those who do not follow the lead.-§-