4. Inquiry Systems: How Do We Know What We Need to Know?

According to the first way of knowing, or IS, one sends out a survey to as many expert bakers as one can worldwide. The particular recipe, or general type thereof, receiving the most votes is deemed “The Perfect Apple Pie.”

This particular IS is not only dependent fundamentally on the agreement between experts, but who is considered to be an expert in the first place. The tighter the agreement between a set of reputable, independent experts, then supposedly the more it represents the Truth of a situation. Ideally, the experts are not all located in the same location, or even time zone, so that they do not unduly influence one another with regard to their personal judgments.

One of the most important examples of Expert Agreement, if not arguably the most, is Climate Change. Up to 97% of Reputable Climate Scientists worldwide are in strong agreement that humans are primarily responsible for Global Warming. Their agreement is not a matter of “raw opinion,” but is based on their independent scientific studies. The point is that Expert Agreement is as important in Science as it is in any field. And, Informed Expert Agreement is very different from casual, everyday opinions, certainly Uninformed.

To be sure, if and when we produce a vaccine for treating the Coronavirus, Expert Agreement will play an important role in ensuring that it is both safe and effective.

Nonetheless, the student was rightly wary of using this IS in all matters. In the case of the Perfect Apple Pie, it may well result in picking the most bland and least offensive recipe, not the “Perfect One.”

The student therefore rejected this IS for all issues. While we did not discuss in the particular class she took the various theories of Psychodynamics that we reviewed in Chap. 1, it’s clear that this IS in particular can be easily manipulated by those who pretend to be experts, for example, Anti-vax groups on Facebook who claim to know more about childhood vaccinations than trained Medical Personnel. Thus, those with an authoritarian or paranoid bent of mind can easily misuse this IS for despicable ends. In fact, it’s especially open to the production of Dis- and Misinformation. In this regard, the Coronavirus has proved to be a goldmine for Conspiracy Theories of all kinds. In this respect, Trump’s tacit support for QAnon is thoroughly reprehensible.

The student then turned to the next IS. In this case, one typically uses the theories and knowledge of a particular scientific or technical discipline to produce “The Single Correct Solution” to a problem.

To illustrate its use, the student picked the science of Chemistry as “the model” for the perfect ingredients, their order, and combination in order to produce the “Perfect Apple Pie.” But as soon as she did this, she pulled back and questioned why Chemistry and it alone should be the sole basis for making a decision in this or any other important case.

Without alluding to the Psychodynamic theories we’ve discussed, she asked, “If one had to pick a single discipline, why wouldn’t the science of Psychology be a better choice?” After all, “Aren’t the basic attitudes and mental states of the bakers important?”

In short, the student rejected this particular IS because she didn’t believe that one and only one discipline generally applied to all of our problems, especially complex messy ones. It’s not that this IS doesn’t have anything at all to contribute, for theories of some sort underlie everything we do. Indeed, it’s the basis in Appendix 2 for the derivation of a mathematical theorem that adds insight into Wicked Messes. Nonetheless, in general, it’s best suited for those problems and issues that can be tightly defined as in the case of exercises.

Most troubling of all, those with crackpot and/or Conspiracy Theories could easily manipulate this IS to their distinct advantage. For this reason, one cannot separate a theory from the theorist. Again, Compartmentalization doesn’t work in the case of real complex, messy problems.

Because the problems of our world increasingly demand Multiple Perspectives, for the first time, the student felt comfortable with a particular IS. Instinctively, she knew that different schools of baking and cooking would frame the issue differently and thus come up with different solutions.

To use this IS, it necessitates a decision-maker who is not only comfortable with divergent views of a problem, but relishes them in the sense that he or she realizes that they are absolutely essential before one can make an informed decision. For instance, one wouldn’t expect a Social Worker, Medical Doctor, Psychologist, Police Officer, etc. to have the same views regarding how best to address drug addiction, but that all of them are relevant to building a comprehensive program of treatment. In short, it requires a Secure Adult. As an added note, this IS wouldn’t tolerate for a moment treating Homelessness and the Global Pandemic from one and only one perspective.

The Third IS is a natural transition to the Fourth. One picks two schools of baking that are the most in opposition and arranges a drag-down, knockdown debate between them. It requires a decision-maker who is not only comfortable with conflict, but also appreciates that it’s absolutely necessary to get to the roots of any complex problem or issue. Hopefully, as a result of witnessing the debate, he or she can come up with a new alternative that was not considered before.

In brief, Dialectic ISs purposely generate conflict between two or more opposing views of a situation or topic. It’s therefore essential that the participants be comfortable with productive conflict, and especially different ways of responding to it.

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model (footnote 3 in Chapter 2) is particularly relevant in this regard. Essentially, there are basically five different ways or modes of handling conflict. Two underlying dimensions are at the basis of the Model: assertiveness and cooperativeness. The first dimension, assertiveness, is the extent to which a person tries to satisfy his or her needs or concerns irrespective of those of others. The second dimension, cooperativeness, is the extent to which a person tries to satisfy another person’s needs or concerns.

Combining the two dimensions in all ways results in the five basic modes: competing (high in assertiveness and low in cooperativeness), accommodating (low in assertiveness and high in cooperativeness), compromising (moderate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness), avoiding (low on both dimensions), and collaborating (high on both dimensions).

Based on extensive research with the Conflict Model Instrument (TKI) (footnote 3 in Chapter 2), it has been found that at best people typically rely on only one or two of the five modes. As a result, they tend not to use the remaining ones. Nonetheless, all five modes are applicable to any situation. Each is helpful in addressing and resolving different needs and perspectives. The key is whether a particular mode matches the key attributes and/or requirements of a situation.

For this reason, we strongly urge everyone not to use a mode purely out of habit or based on their underlying personality. Instead, depending on one’s answers to the following questions, one needs to choose one or more of the five modes as they are appropriate:

If there is high or, worse yet, overwhelming stress in a situation say due to the Coronavirus or any other Mega Crisis, then the five ways of handling a conflict quickly collapse to three defensive reactions: Fight, Flight, or Freeze. Ideally, as much as possible, all of the discussions or debates need to take place under conditions of low to moderate stress so that those involved in a Dialectic will be able to choose that mode that is best suited to the situation. At the same time, one is hopefully able to switch modes as the situation changes.

To return to the example of “The Perfect Apple Pie,” the student made reference to the hackneyed TV show Iron Chef where two chefs staged a “bakeoff” as to which one had the best recipe for a particular dish.

A more serious example is the following: It’s reputed that when Alfred P. Sloan, one of the early Chairmen of GM, had an important decision to make and when his key subordinates agreed too readily on a single proposal, he’s alleged to have said, “Gentlemen, I propose that we adjourn so that we can formulate at least two opposing perspectives so we can have a reasoned debate regarding what we should do.” In short, Sloan didn’t trust any single perspective.

It should be noted that as was characteristic of his times, there were apparently no women who were members of Sloan’s key group of subordinates and key advisors. We deplore it in every way possible.

One of the key properties of this and the previous IS is the clear recognition that Data are not Theory or Value-Free. Ever since the great Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant, we’ve known that one has to presume some Theory, however informal or taken-for-granted, about the phenomenon in which we are interested in order to collect Data that are relevant with respect to it. In short, any old kind of Data will not do. Thus, it requires considerable training in the Physical Sciences to collect the “right kinds of Data” that are informative with regard to Global Warming. But it also requires the Social Sciences as well since we need to change human behavior significantly.

One of the chief defects of Classical Empiricism was its taken-for-granted assumption that Sense Data were readily available just by opening one’s eyes, ears, etc. In other words, one didn’t need to presuppose any Theory in order to collect any Data. As a result, it didn’t account for the “fact” that those with different perspectives not only saw different Data, but interpreted the “Same Data” differently.

In this regard, those who assert that “there are alternate facts” are both right and profoundly wrong. They are right in the sense that different theories allow one to uncover different facts. They are wrong if they think that all so-called facts are of equal standing. The theories that are needed to uncover the “facts” are themselves not of equal weight.

The last IS is the most comprehensive of all. It is in fact the underlying basis of Systems Thinking (see Appendix 3).

It’s based on the pioneering work of the American Pragmatist Philosopher, E.A. Singer Jr. In turn, Singer was one of the best students of the great American Philosopher/Psychologist William James. As such, he developed James’ ideas further.

With regard to our baking example, the student realized that the Aesthetics (setting) of the kitchen, the use of Ethical ingredients, and the attitudes of the cook and his or her staff were as important as anything.

Singer also stressed that no single science or discipline was more fundamental than any other. Indeed, they were all interdependent and on an equal footing. For instance, whether it acknowledges it or not, and mostly it doesn’t, Physics is dependent on Psychology and Sociology, for it’s humans with all of their conscious and unconscious needs and desires who concoct theories and make informed observations about the world.

Without a doubt, the greatest contribution of modern Pragmatism is the concept of Wicked Messes. To reiterate, it follows from the foundational ideas of William James and Singer. Indeed, C. West Churchman, Mitroff’s major Philosophical mentor, was one of Singer’s most prominent students. And Ackoff was one of Churchman’s first PhD students in Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. Thus, if Singer is intellectually the authors’ Grandfather, then William James is our Great Grandfather! A fact about which we couldn’t be more proud.

In the end, we only get out of Inquiry what we put into it. We not only put ourselves into it in the form of our collective Psychology, but our collective Social Actions as well.

Before we leave the discussion of ISs, it’s imperative that we say a brief word about Ethics, especially since it’s a prominent aspect of Pragmatist ISs. But then, the various schools of Ethics strongly parallel the major ISs we’ve been discussing.

In addition to exposing glaring weaknesses in virtually all of our major systems, the Coronavirus has also exposed serious weaknesses in the Ethical Systems that we use to justify our actions and, even more, to make sense of the world. The misuse of some of the prominent schools of Ethical reasoning is appalling. Indeed, it’s profoundly Unethical.

The dreadful misuse of Utilitarianism is by far the worst. Thus, in one of the many protest rallies, someone had the absolute gall to say, “10,000 deaths are acceptable if it puts people back to work.” In other words, “it’s not only a small, but an acceptable price to pay.”

If this wasn’t bad enough, to reiterate, the Lt. Governor of Texas said we could afford to “lose grandparents because they’ve already lived their lives.”

In brief, Utilitarianism is the philosophy of “The greatest good for the greatest number.” In modern times, it’s the basis of Cost-Benefit Analysis. That is, something is “acceptable”—in essence Ethical—if it’s Benefits clearly exceed its Costs or Disbenefits. The trouble of course is who determines what is a “Benefit versus a Cost and to whom.” Indeed, whom of your loved ones would you consign to death in order to benefit “the greater good?” The use of Utilitarianism in this way is not just supremely callous, but downright evil.

It’s not that Utilitarianism is never warranted. Many times, we are put in the unenviable position of having to choose and thereby justify a particular course of action where the Benefits do exceed the Costs, but where the Costs nevertheless are harmful to ourselves and others. We do it not only because we must do something, but we see no other reasonable alternative. The most obvious case is where we willingly sacrifice untold lives in war to save many more.

The school of Deontology which owes its origin to Kant fares better, although it’s not without its own problems. The basic idea is that one should choose that course of action that one can “Will as a Universal Maxim or Principle for All Humankind.” Thus, “sheltering in place” qualifies as a Universal Principle because it’s proven to save lives. Indeed, lacking a vaccine, along with the wearing of masks, it’s the only effective means we have of containing the Virus. The trouble is that while it’s absolutely effective, indeed required, it fails to account for the severe backlash that it’s generated. In this sense, while its clear intent is to be universal, it’s not necessarily Systemic. It does not take into account all of its effects, let alone unintended consequences.

Situational Ethics fares no better. It basically argues that the vast majority of circumstances that we’re forced to navigate are far too complex and varied to be dealt with by all-encompassing rules. Instead, each situation must be handled according to its individual merits. This is of little comfort to those Health Workers who must make the god-awful decision as to who gets a lifesaving ventilator or treatment in short supply, let alone the use of severely limited supplies of Personal Protection Equipment or PPE.

Without reviewing all of the other schools of Ethics, the point is that the Coronavirus has put us in the tragic situation of having to make life-altering decisions without sufficient Ethical guidelines. We are left in a deep social quandary. It’s only furthered by deep cultural and social divides. More than ever, we need a shared Social Ethic. We’re truly in this altogether.

In a strange way, Utilitarianism comes to our aid. A substantial majority of Americans are strongly in favor of keeping sheltering-in-place until if and when we have a proven means of defeating the Virus.

As imperfect as they are, for many of us, our theories of Ethics are all that we have to guide us through troubled times. If they do not provide perfect answers, it’s because perfection is not open to us mere mortals. Nothing reflects better our ongoing struggle than the constant search for Ethical principles by which to direct our lives.