Thursday, August 02, 2007

filters.

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/books/rev_filters_bajema.html

an experpt from filters agains folly by garrett hardin.


Our increasingly complex and interdependent society requires the development of more effective problem solving strategies. Garret Hardin asks, "How are we laymen to survive in a world increasingly dominated by experts?" We need lay defenses to protect ourselves against the assumptions (conscious and unconscious), the biases, the prejudices and ignorance of experts so that we can evaluate the claims of experts as we citizens try to identify the most appropriate course of action. Hardin contends that the greatest folly citizens can commit when confronted with expert testimony is to accept expert statements uncritically. The statement that "The authority of a scholar is measured by how long he/she can delay progress in his/her field" applies equally to experts in engineering and government as well as in science and theology.
Experts, be they economists, ecologists or linguists, have been aptly described as individuals who know more and more about less and less. Since the world is too complex for our minds to remember every detail and to easily encompass the whole, experts employ filters to set aside certain dimensions of reality as trivial or as something to be dealt with by another expert. Since different filters alter the total picture of reality in different ways, we need to know the characteristics of the intellectual filters used by experts as well as by ourselves in solving problems. Professor Hardin identifies three major filters against folly that we citizens can use against the blindness, short sightedness, and sheer idiocy that so often comes disguised as eloquence or expertise.

i have read this book several times and recommend it highly to those who want to be able to think clearly as opposed to finding a cause to get behind or just repeat expert opinion as fact.

the greeks called it reason.

our laws are based on the actions of the reasonable man.

unfortunately the reasonable man has become victim of the expert, so we are being judged by the values of whichever expert has the podium currently.

we are hurriedly entering into the era of the environmental scientist, wherby pretty soon all of our resources will be consumed by solving what these "experts" are calling a man-made disaster. so........as our taxes are winched up to solve the problem we have less money in our pockets.

hmm. sounds like socialist politics to me. more taxes = more government. the question nobody in the environmental cult seems to be asking is how the dollars will be spent.

but they are the experts though. we couldn`t possibly understand.


The first filter is literacy - "the ability to understand what words really mean." The second is numeracy - "the ability not only to quantify information, but also to interpret it intelligently." Hardin calls the last filter ecolacy - the ability to take into account the effects of complex interactions of systems over time.

2 comments:

X. Dell said...

I cannot speak about where you're from (although I have spent a bit of time in the UK), in the US there's always been an abhorrence to experts simply because they are experts--something that really predates specialization mania.

Part of US anti-intellectualism stems from the conflict between academia and business interests. The issue of global warming is an excellent example of this. There was a bill (several years ago) to require SUVs to be more fuel efficient, thus helping to reduce emissions, and slowdown greenhouse effects. But because the US auto industry didn't want to absorb a cut in their profits (SUVs are expensive enough, and there is this thing called market elasticity that prevents them from simply passing the total cost along to the consumer), they attacked the experts as, well, experts who didn't really know anything (or as in the words used here, knew more and more about less and less).

Likewise, there has been widespread dismissal of experts within the current US administration, who has taken a lot of analysis and vital information off its websites and brochures. They are able to get away with such censorship because they realize that the American public is actively anti-intellectual, and encouraged from birth to ignore those who have actively engaged in research, and who have paid dues for their knowledge in favor of quasi authoritative spokespersons (police, government officials, talking heads, newscasters) etc..

While I agree that the increasing specialization in academia is one of its most accute problems, I don't think that an anti-intellectual approach will help it--in fact, quite the reverse. What will help (in addition to restructuring the academy away from the publish-or-perish stupidity--a real factor in increasing specialization) is to emphasize critical reasoning skills from an early age--not just regarding advice from "experts" but also from other authoritative sources--parents, managers, teachers, friends, media, etc..

There used to be such education in the US. I once had a 1950s textbook on fallacy (I have since lost it) that was really designed to foster critical reasoning--something that now falls into my area, the humanities, which are often characterized by many in power as either useless or frivolous.

The emphasis on critical reasoning in 1950s curricula as opposed to now is evident in public discourse, which seems far more substantive in the former compared to the latter.

I do find some irony here that Mr. Hardin obviously fancies himself an expert on this subject, BTW.

Dr.Alistair said...

i had actually missed the irony of hardin`s expertise. funny.

the anti-intellectualism,i believe, is a deliberate strategy.

the diluting of material in the junior schools as we have seen results in a pool of people who are unable to think or find thought to express themselves when confonted with the onslaught of rules, laws and policies designed to do little but enslave.

the answer?

i have no clue. i have learned to find voice for my own concerns and offer strategies of other individuals.

to take the rhetoric into the group setting has the potential for becoming a cult and i resist the urge........

it`s interesting that you speak of applying critical thinking to parenting.

that`s precisely why my father became annoyed with me when i was six and i rejected his position on free will and many other of his favorite jesuit arguements.

religious belief is the first victim of critical thinking.

and it was him who demanded that i think critically in the first place.

speaking of irony.