First and foremost, Inquiry Systems or ISs are major models for the production and authentication of credible knowledge in which, along with Ethics, we put our basic trust to guide our lives. However, at the same time, ISs also serve as fundamental coping mechanisms to alleviate the intense anxiety that accompanies the immense uncertainty associated with less than perfect knowledge, especially in today’s problematic and highly uncertain world.
In their classic formulation, ISs are certainly not the only ways in which we cope with the anxiety brought about the complexities of modern life. Far from it.
Anzeige
One of the best ways of seeing this is by examining what each IS takes as “Objective Knowledge,” especially how they direct us to produce it. Further, comparing different forms of “Objectivity” yields another important benefit. It makes clear the nature of very different kinds of coping mechanisms that are the direct counterparts, if not opposites, of each IS, especially the first four.
5.1 Objectivity
We cannot emphasize enough that each of the ISs that we’ve explored has a distinct and very different concept of how best to produce “Objective Knowledge,” indeed what is “Objective.”
According to Expert Consensus, something is Objective if and only if it’s the result of “Hard, Irrefutable Facts” as determined by a group of Reputable Experts who are in strong agreement with one another. Based on the “facts,” they are also in strong agreement regarding how to address and best cope with the situation responsible for an important problem. Once again, one of the most important examples is that of Climate Change. Based on their independent scientific studies, the “fact” that 97% of “reputable climate scientists” are in strong agreement is taken as “objective evidence” that humans are primarily responsible for Global Warming. They are also in strong agreement that humans need to cut back drastically on the use of carbon-based fuels to prevent further damage to the planet. The worry is that we may soon, if not already, be past the point of irreversible damage.
According to Analytic Modeling, or the One True Formula, something is Objective if and only if it’s the result of a Rigorous Theory that has been validated repeatedly by independent analysts. Furthermore, the theory has to have shown time and time again that it is able to predict the behavior of an important phenomenon. A primary example is Sir Isaac Newton’s Laws of Motion. Even though they are a special case of Einstein’s, for bodies moving slowly with respect to the enormous speed of light, Newton’s Laws are extremely accurate with regard to predicting the behavior of moving objects. For example, starting with Newton’s Theory of Gravitation, and using the Calculus, which Newton played a fundamental role in its invention, one can derive a formula for the distance D that a body falls in time T. The result is the familiar formula, D = ½ G T^2, where G is the Gravitational Constant.
Anzeige
As a general rule, only the Physical Sciences meet the strict criterion of this IS, whereas the Social Sciences supposedly do not, a contention that the other ISs do not necessarily accept and, indeed, object to strongly.
According to Multiple Realities, something is Objective if and only if it’s the product of widely different perspectives of an important problem or issue. Indeed, according to this IS, it’s extremely dangerous to base an important decision on any single theory or perspective no matter how well-validated it is or how strongly a group supports it. Since everything depends on the assumptions we make, it’s virtually impossible to get at the assumptions underlying a single perspective or theory without comparing it systematically with others. As a result, to be Objective is to expose and contrast the assumptions of varying perspectives and thus to be able to choose that perspective, or perspectives, whose assumptions “best fit” the complexities of a particular situation.1 In other words, no single perspective is sufficient to account for any complex situation. In turn, coping with a complex situation is a function of the “blend” between multiple perspectives, at the very least, taking into account differing recommendations on how to best treat a complex situation.
The Coronavirus in particular shows the extreme importance of assumptions, particularly those that we take for granted. Thus, a primary assumption was that the general public would follow scrupulously the recommendations of major Public Health Officials when it comes to wearing masks, practicing safe social distancing, washing hands, sheltering-in-place, etc. While many did indeed follow such advice, unfortunately many did not, thus not only endangering the general population, but as a result, not slowing the spread of the Virus.
Furthermore, many of the reasons that were given for not wearing masks and practicing social distancing border on the bizarre. Thus, “it’s my Constitutional right to behave as I see fit.” Or, “the Government is out to curb my freedom by forcing me to wear masks.” According to our reading, we don’t see where the Constitution gives anyone the unfettered right to cause harm to one’s fellow citizens.
The Dialectical IS posits that Objectivity is only achieved by means of witnessing the strongest possible debate one can produce between the two most opposing views of a problematic situation. The view that survives and/or is the product of the debate, which is not necessarily either of the original two, is deemed Objective. Once again, this assumes that one has a decision-maker who not only tolerates but appreciates the right kind of conflict.
One of the most prominent examples of the Dialectical IS is Medicine. Even though more and more Medicine is Evidence-Based, whether in the form of Expert Consensus or otherwise, every case is subject to differing interpretations and thus recommendations as to how to best treat it. After all, different doctors have different bodies of experience, training, etc., all of which affect how they “see” and “size up” a situation.
Finally, according to Pragmatic ISs, Objectivity is not a property of any single IS, but ideally of all of them working together and thus supporting one another. Only by means of their honest and sincere cooperation can one possibly hope to make headway and thus cope with complex messy problems. Thus, Global Warming requires all of the ISs in order to “make significant progress.” All problems of importance require the best Data and theories we have. But in line with Multiple Realities, the Data and theories we have are only indicative, rarely final. Likewise, all important issues require the best debate we can arrange with respect to them. And, the Data and theories we have are only fuel for the debate, not necessarily deciding factors.
Once again, a key element of Pragmatic ISs is that all of the Sciences, Physical and Social, are on equal footing. Indeed, they presuppose one another. Thus, the Physical Sciences couldn’t work without the Social, and vice versa. This consideration gives rise to different forms of coping mechanisms.
Consider Expert Consensus. According to the various Psychological and Psychodynamic theories we’ve examined, impersonal, geographically separate, dispersed groups are not the same as groups who personally know and support their members intimately. They are also not the same as groups that are led by a specially trained facilitator who is well versed in Group Dynamics and thus able to help people cope with intense personal conflicts and disagreements. They are certainly not the same as where the leader is a trained Psychotherapist. Whereas Expert Agreement calls such groups nothing but a morass of “subjective feelings,” Pragmatist ISs counter with the “hard fact” that feelings are a fundamental part of everything humans do. Better to get them out and air them than to pretend they don’t exist. In this regard, surfacing and examining one’s feelings only adds to Objectivity, not diminishes or detracts from it.
In a similar manner, the use of theories as instructed by the One True Formula is often but just a prominent way of hiding our anxieties and feelings about an important situation. By their very nature, this is less true of Multiple Realities and Dialectical Inquiry.
The point is that Coping with Chaos not only requires Individual, but Group Therapy. In every sense of the term, it requires Secure Adult leaders who have experienced Secure Attachments in childhood, or have overcome Insecure ones.
Consider the broad spectrum by which individuals and groups respond to uncertainty. At the one end is “shutting down completely, and thereby effectively withdrawing from uncertainty and extended social life.” Alternatively, one seeks out groups that have the wildest conspiracy positions and theories. At the other end is “embracing uncertainty and using the best means available of coping with it.”
The point is that just as there are Secure and Insecure forms of Attachments in childhood, and later in life, there are Secure and Insecure forms of Inquiry.
The end result is that the admonition to be “Objective” is largely meaningless. The proper response is “What kind of ‘objectivity’ is most appropriate for the problem at hand?”, which is the basic consideration of Pragmatic ISs.
It bears repeating. ISs are not only diverse ways of producing and authenticating knowledge, but of fundamental ways of coping with the uncertainties of life. And, they help us understand those ways of coping that are their opposites.
In the end, the prime question is “How much uncertainty can we bear?” And, “Who can help us to bear it?”
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.