Help
Sign In
epistemology
September 2009 
Perfect logic is meaningless without perfect perspective.
Donan
I use this maxim almost every time I approach a problem. I wrote it roughly 12 years ago to explain why good minds arrive at wrong or different answers to seemingly the same question. The reality of it is that when people come up with different answers they are either asking a different question, or deriving an answer from a slightly (or sometimes enormously) different data set.
There are many reasons for this. Personal biases–we all have them–affect the way we view data. Assumptions that are not supported, valid or not, may change one's answer. But the biggest reason, I think, for different answers is that it is impossible for the human mind to fully grasp some questions, and when we can grasp those questions, it is still impossible to fully integrate all factors that affect the outcome–our answer.
This brings me to the corollary: In order to fully understand, one's view must expand to fully encompass that which is being understood.
If I cannot, or merely do not, perceive every possible piece of data that does affect the outcome of any question, it is impossible for me to say with certainty that I am right. Of this, I am quite certain ;-) Of much else, I am quite certain that I have failed to ask the right question. Hence, you will generally find that I am quite happy to change my mind on anything that I believe to be the case when a broader picture is laid before me. It's not flip-flopping; it's learning. Pride in being right is best left for fools who will not be taught.
That is not to say that someone who argues vehemently for one position or another is a fool; there are many valid mechanisms through which people explore truths. Someone may appear belligerent while they are absorbing new data and take time to synthesize the new learning into a new and different answer. It is also worth remembering that the answer may still be different (from other's answer) due to knowledge regarding the subject which others do not possess…so a unique answer is found.
Perfect perspective, if it were possible, combined with perfect problem solving ability would take all pertinent facts and boil them down into a brew of perfect truth. Here an assumption; no human possesses perfect perspective. Considering this assumption, it is only possible for a human to consider certainty of any one thing with this caveat: should there be additional data which bears on the question, the answer may change.
The difference between this philosophy and Nietzsche's perspectivism is that taken at face value, Nietzsche holds a given perspective as justification to claim the answer true within the context of that perspective. This easily breaks down into relativism. (Note that here, when I refer to relativism, I am talking about a philosophy of truth, and not as relativism pertains to ethics and morality which are, by definition, relative to a given set of societal or other assumptions. Perhaps I'll delve into that can of worms here someday.)
The perfect perspective answer remains unchanged…but the imperfect perspective answer that recognizes what it is will be mutable to match perspective. So that may be true for you, it is not currently true for me; teach me what i am missing and i will teach you what i see and together we will expand our respective universes of thought.
Access: Public
Perhaps the most stunning physical problem/solution of our modern/postmodern age is what is referred to as Einstein’s relativity. Considered a masterpiece of logic and reason, it proceeded largely from the greatest minds of the 19th and early 20th Centuries, and achieved its most elegant expression just a century ago in the work of a patent clerk hoping to solve a falsifying contradiction in Maxwell’s equations unifying electricity with magnetism.
The mathematics is a little thick, but in concrete terms the problem is not quite so hard to understand, and it’s been written about so much that anyone seeing this now can search the net and find more descriptions of this paradigm shift than they are likely interested in reading. The great change in thinking - to put it in a nutshell - is that we used to suppose that all clocks read the same time simultaneously, but now we take it that all times occur simultaneously. More concretely: We used to suppose that our watches read the same time simultaneously, but now we take it that our watches read both the same time and different times simultaneously, and which of the two is true depends on one’s perspective.
So correct perspective depends on, well, one’s perspective, and the inherent paradox of this logical ouroboros has been biting our ass ever since. Let me illustrate.
First: The popular expression of the problem is, “Who’s time is it, anyway?”, and the problem, in the most concrete terms, and as understood by today’s science, comes down to: “Either our clocks read the same time simultaneously or they read different times simultaneously, or both; Einstein gives us both; but “both” swallows its own tail.
How so?
Well!
Suppose we put some atomic clocks in orbit around the Earth. And we have: the GPS satellite clocks. Now, let’s have some of these in the same orbit, so that they are in uniform relative motion. We have that, too.
OK. Now let us suppose that these clocks are synchronous as viewed from the Earth. Ahh, well, they are, in fact that is exactly the point of the GPS system - providing these synchronized clocks as a standard of measurement for all of us.
Problem: The theory of relativity tells us that if these clocks are synchronous as viewed from Earth, then they must be asynchronous with each other as viewed from their own inertial frame (free fall is an inertial frame because - relativity tells us - space is curved and no accelerating force is acting on the clocks). And that, in fact, is the very basis of Einstein’s theory: the failure of simultaneity for clocks in relative motion.
You see, if I shine a light from one satellite to the next and back, from the Earth’s point of view that light will take longer to travel in one direction than in the other, because the velocity of the light is constant as viewed from Earth and thus the clocks are moving relative to the light - one moving in the same direction, and the other towards the light’s source. But for astronauts traveling with the clocks (imaginary observers), the satellites are not moving - the Earth is rotating, and so they also must see that the light’s speed is constant, and so the transit time of the light is the SAME in both directions. This means that the astronauts could use the light beam to synchronize the clocks from their perspective (using Einstein’s/Lorentz’ simple formula, see “The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”), but if they did, then the clocks would be asynchronous as viewed from Earth, and, visa versa: thus the clocks must, in fact, be asynchronous in their common inertial frame as viewed from the satellites because they are, in fact, synchronous as viewed from Earth.
Problem solved. Phew.
Wait!
Deeper problem: If one actually applies Einstein’s formula, the result not only tells us that the clocks are asynchronous as viewed from the satellites, but also that the trailing clock - the clock bringing up the rear as viewed from Earth - must be running faster than the leading clock as viewed from the satellites because the light’s transit to the chaser satellite is quicker as viewed from Earth. This is hard to visualize for me and I don’t want to lose anybody (especially me :), but there’s plenty of literature on this available a mouse click or two away, so let us not crowd Donan’s blog space with the details.
Instead let us cut to the chase: which satellite is leading and which is trailing depends on your perspective because the satellites are circling the Earth in the same orbit. This means that the trailing clock is ALSO the leading clock - depending on perspective - and so must be running BOTH slower AND faster. Paradox.
Ok. So what in the world does this have to do with philosophy and Donan’s musings? Everything. You see, paradoxes tell us that there is something wrong with our assumptions about reality. In this case something very deeply buried, deeper than science is looking today and generally cares to look…all the way back to philosophy, back to the meanings of words, and the meanings of meanings, and stop me before I hurt somebody!! Yowser.
So, perfect logic is meaningless without perfect perspective, but that perfection lies well beyond the current grasp of most of our best thinkers…and so saving the world from itself is a task that will not wait for us all to agree on the path. It is a task that asks of us that we teach each other, as Donan says, and in my view this means that we must listen with our hearts to each other, not for perfect perspective, just for the present voice, just listen for the opportunity to help.
As long as there are a few of us serving the light, thus, the world will not die.
If I cannot, or merely do not, perceive every possible piece of data that does affect the outcome of any question, it is impossible for me to say with certainty that I am right. Of this, I am quite certain ;-) Of much else, I am quite certain that I have failed to ask the right question. Hence, you will generally find that I am quite happy to change my mind on anything that I believe to be the case when a broader picture is laid before me. It's not flip-flopping; it's learning. Pride in being right is best left for fools who will not be taught.
Learning indeed - and why a continuous process of learning to learn IS paramount - in the process of disconnecting the mechanism of interpretation
Attitude alters perspective, hate pride or selfishness or generosity love compassion?