Absolutely!

First posted on 8-7-2013:

"Absolutely" sets a new standard for "most abused word".  

My granddaughter Leah searching for absolutes

Turn on any interview news show.  Within seconds you'll hear the word, "Absolutely!" What's wrong with that? Well, this definitive response is likely about some relatively complex issue that doesn't even approach any absolute condition. Or the question wouldn't have been asked in the first place.

Why is "Absolutely!" such a common answer?  Is there really that much certainly in our world?  Nope.  It's the result of lazy thinking.

"Absolutely" is being applied to things that are not only NOT absolute, often they are not even probable. Consider the source. Who is the spokesman?  Politician? Anyone else with a bias?  See what I mean?  Ironically, the very opposite of their "absolute" assertion is often the case.  Strangely enough, the more emphatic the claim, the less likely it is to be true.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and "there is absolutely no sex of any kind" - President Bill Clinton, 1998 from public statement and deposition

This onslaught of "absolutely!" is an excellent opportunity for some critical thinking.  Consider possible exceptions to the assertions as they are being stated.  Under what conditions might the statement NOT be true?  See what I mean?

Years ago I had a friend who, when I'd make some brash statement would say, "As opposed to?", then follow it with possible exceptions.  She was very good at this, and it became a game we played.  So I stole her trick. It's great mind candy, and quickly begs an even more important question - is ANYthing absolute?


Absolutely!

Seriously, isn't "absolutely" simply an idea?  A creation of the human mind?  Is it not our aspiration to see things all one way? Or all the other?  Isn't "absolutely" merely the result of a bad case of polar thinking?

"Absolutely" doesn't really exist.  Seeking the truth is best approached asymptotically, leaving the end-point for the weaker mind.  It's like "unsinkable", "unstoppable" or "immovable", each an admirable goal, but not achievable in the real world. "Unsinkable" didn't even complete its first voyage.

So is NOTHING absolutely true?  Nope.  Well, not likely.

"There are no absolutes", MAY be the ONLY valid absolute.

I can imagine everyone now bringing to mind their favorite absolutes - God, love, mathematics, gravity. I could go on and on, and so can you.  So let's start with the most popular:


God

Many of you think me an atheist, but you'd be wrong.  I'm at best (or worst) an agnostic.  And I have doubts about that.  But I DO hold that each of us should be given the tolerance to explore as we wish.  And that's the key - we need to keep an opened mind.

God is not only an overloaded word (many meanings), it's also one of the most over-loaded concepts we have in all the various aspects of human culture.  Unfortunately, the truth of God does not have a very good track record, under any religion.  

Compare the "truths" of  God, Jesus Christ, Buddha and Mohammad as documented.  They can't ALL be right.  To be candid, I think Mohammad, Buddha and Jesus Christ may have been pretty impressive guys, but you wouldn't know it from all the contradictions and contemporary interpretations.   To be fair, let's take each one separately.  They still get interpreted in many different ways by different "believers".  Again, even for any one religion, they can't ALL be right.  And if any of these doctrines were absolutely true, why would there ever be a need for change?  And yet they DO change from time to time. 

Let me get specific about the absolute aspect of God, not religion. Is our existence (or its illusion for some), proof of God?  Hardly. Our "existence" is demonstratively discoverable, and aspects of it are changing day by day.  Make a statement about existence, and a thousand others will provide counterpoints.  And that's WITHOUT questioning perception and relativity.  I could go on and on, but everyone else already has. Keep an opened mind.  Even about God.


Love

So, what about love?  It's so pure and simple, it MUST be absolute. Unfortunately, love too is a highly overloaded word, concept, and even overloaded feeling. Love goes mystic as an experience, but all you have to do is ingest some MDMA to produce its subjective conviction.  This clearly demonstrates our experience of love is at the very least, part of a chemical feedback loop in human behavior. And the conviction you feel on your wedding day? Give it seven years. Again, love's track record is no better than God's. Actually, it's quite a bit worse.


Mathematics

Ahh... mathematics - it's perfection itself.  Hardly.  Math is only a game we play in our struggle to understand the world. Mathematics is a creation of the human mind, and simply a tool for science.  If you look closely, the "truth" of mathematics flows from its usefulness in the observations we've made, or else is some form of identity - wholly disconnected from reality, which again makes it simply an abstraction of thought, which is more of an illusion than an absolute.

How a verbal paradox shattered the notion of total certainty in mathematics

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” – Albert Einstein



Gravity

Speaking of Einstein, gravity never fails us!

Don't be silly.  Of course it does.  Along with all the other "laws" of science.  All you have to do is go into orbit.  OK, that's not fair.  The subjective experience of gravity just takes on a different form in orbit.  But seriously.  Ever heard of the 30 years that shook physics? 

In the late nineteenth century, it was thought that all science had been discovered, there were just a few refinements to be made. There was even talk of shutting down the patent office. And then along came Einstein.  That's when all hell broke loose (not related to God).  

Suffice it to say, we have more organized doubt in science now, than in any time in history.  And that's healthy. And that's the point. Any student entering the field of science today who does not have an open mind is a fool.  If he "believes" in math, if he "believes" in science, he is likely to be worse than useless in this endeavor. He may actually distract us from approaching the truth with his conviction.

Like mathematics, scientific absolutes are an illusion of the human mind.  Instead of discovering absolutes, science is how we claw our way forward in thinking.  Just don't hold too tightly to your conclusions, while you reach for the next hand-hold.  You'll find it easier to grasp.


Useful Generalization

So the next time you hear someone exclaim, "Absolutely!", let your mind wander to all the exceptions.  Then realize the person making the statement needs a lesson in critical thinking. Help them out. Explain that their conclusion may only be a useful generalization.

If you have any other "absolutes", please comment below.  I'll do what I can to help you test them.

Who knows, maybe you'll find one.  

But I doubt it.

If you do find something in nature that is perfectly consistent with all of its history, well, it's probably just waiting for its exception.

Perhaps the best statement on the topic: 

"I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief." - Gerry Spence

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." - Voltaire

Another similar conclusion:

"I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman in 1981 from this interview:

Richard Feynman on Religion, Science, the Search for Truth; Our Willingness to Live with Doubt

Half the "Facts" You Know Are Probably Wrong

"Settled" Science?

There are NO Absolutes. There is NO Absolute Truth!

03-07-06 Everything Is Crumbling

John Oliver: Scientific Studies

12-07-17 Scientific Proof Is aA Myth

05-02-18 The Danger of Absolute Thinking

Standards of Truth

If absolutes are an illusion of the human mind, how do we gauge relative truth?  When does a generalization become useful?

The American justice system takes this illusion into account and presents a good example of something useful with its two standards of proof. "More likely than not" is required to indict (bring to the court).  "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is required to convict (and proceed with sentence and execution).  Both evaluate evidence but ultimately require subjective conviction.  If all proof was truly objective, judges and juries wouldn't be needed.

"More likely than not" simply means anything with a probability of greater than 50 percent, even by just a little.  This reflects nature's effort to exceed the average. The test covers half the spectrum of probability and also reflects how the intuitive mind reaches conclusions.  Evidence is presented, but "feelings" one way or the other are used to describe our ultimate conclusion.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a far stronger test. It means almost certain and requires substantial evidence, logic and nothing contrary that raises "reasonable doubt". Still, mistakes are made and innocent people are put to death.  Most convicted ARE guilty, but there are exceptions.

These are the same tests we unconsciously use to filter our experience.  If something makes sense, we find it more likely than not to be true.  We put it in the probable category and wait for more evidence.  Once we get multiple independent verification, we move beyond a reasonable doubt to conviction.  It's conviction that drives our action. But even after conviction we sometimes discover error. Does it make us more careful? Usually not. Generally we rationalize our action as based on bad data.  We blame someone else and move on.

Still, these two standards of truth are powerful tools and the best we have in critical thinking.  Keep them handy.  Weight the evidence.  Be ready to be wrong.

Philosophy

Philosophy is the love of knowledge, which makes it a good starting point for critical thinking.  Unless we have a useful frame of reference, all else is folly.

Of course I can't explore all of philosophy in a few paragraphs but I can cover the important points.

The first question of philosophy is:

WHY?

And of course the most useful answer is:

WHY NOT?

With that out of the way, the next question is, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

In other words, do WE create reality though observation (or some other interaction)?  I'll answer this one quickly as well: if so, it doesn't matter.  And with the inverse where we're in The Matrix, it's the same irrelivance.

I DO believe the concept of Plato's Cave is useful.  Our observations ARE generally made in a subjective reality distortion field.  We have to struggle to find the objective, which gets me to the point of this blog post:

Our challenge is in finding useful generalizations.

Useful Generalizations

It was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said, "No generalization is worth a damn... including this one."  And it's true that the mind is an easy thing to twist, especially when insulated from reality with layers of language and logic.  But I believe Oliver's admonition was not futile, but was to get us to think about the QUALITY of our generalizations, and try to make sure they are useful, if not absolute.

My approach to philosophy is the scientific method, we make repeated observations then generalize about the next outcome without resorting to any ultimate or absolute conclusion.  In other words, do the best with what we have and stay flexible.

Mine is a very practical philosophy - if I can find useful models, I'll use them until they are no longer useful.

And then I'll seek a new model.

And along the way, I'll keep an opened mind.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Seriously, I couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't.  Instead, here's the link:

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Keep it in mind when you read the headlines.

Sam Harris: Science CAN Answer Moral Questions

This is an impressive guy with excellent critical thinking on a very difficult topic.  TED is doing a great job of finding not only those who have considered challenging topics, but also those who can express themselves well. 

This presentation has a lot to say about impact of culture as contrasted in Sex at Dawn.  It's worth a watch:

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions