Even within your own body without your attention or effort, your body has digested your last meal, repaired any damages to its internal organs (provided you slept long and well enough), and your mind has dreamt of who knows what.

What can we know for sure? How certain can our knowledge be? How much should we trust what we know or think we know? In what knowledge can we have reasonable, or absolute, confidence (or at least as much as can be had in this universe)? Is it reasonable to believe that we could be deluded about reality and if we did so, what would that get us? Would it help make our lives better in any way?

WHAT DO WE MEAN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS?

What does it mean to Know, to be Real, to Exist, or to be True? As a set of pragmatic definitions I would argue for the following:

1) What we Know is what we can reproduce mentally in a usable way in our minds. By ‘usable’ I mean we are able to use what we know to change our behavior (even if that is merely expressing the stuff we know in language). There is only a tenuous connection between what we Know and what is demonstrably True. We ought to seek some external evidence before declaring something to be True.

2) What is Real is what ever has (or can have) an effect upon the Existing world or your life,  physically or psychologically.

3) What Exists is what has physical effects or presence.  The number ‘2’ is Real but has no Existence tho a statue of iron in the shape of the number would have Existence.

4) What is True is that which is in concord with the way that the universe actually is. Only to the extent that we are able to ascertain the way the universe is can we compare this to the belief or knowledge we wish to test. To the extent that there is a match we must, at least provisionally, declare the belief to be True. As we and others continue to test what we Know and it proves both reproducible and aligned with (hopefully accurate) observations of Nature (all or part of the universe ) then we can be ever more certain that our knowledge is True, at least in part.

WHAT CAN WE KNOW TO BE REAL?

I would assert that there are at least three things we can Know are absolutely Real (though whether they are True or not remains open to question):

1) Imaginary things and concepts: these seem to exist at the root of our knowing in that we have to imagine the world and put all the separate things we have perceived about it together in our imagination to feel that we know what it is. So any imaginary thing we include or invent feels absolutely real. Unfortunately it feels real even if it is not and requires a forceful disconfirmation to remove it from our mental models. But our knowing of them is as absolute as any thing can be.

2) Mathematical patterns: Mathematics professor and author Rudy Rucker has said that “Mathematics is the study of pure pattern”. What that means is that we humans have invented a set of symbols to describe patterns that seem basic to nature and to existence. These begin with One (1) our name for a single isolated thing in and of itself. Zero (0) absence of a thing. Negative one (-1) debt or something missing. Then we can continue with names for  multiples of a thing: two (2), three (3) etc. in positive or negative directions. We can also describe parts in terms of fractions: half (1/2) a third (1/3) etc. These all started as we organized our sensory experiences, but soon the realm of numbers begin to show patterns in themselves- many of which we subsequently find in the world but many more seem confined to the realm of numbers. And yet all these seem real because anyone who learns the symbols can come to the same conclusions about the patterns. This verification between what we think we know and what another person (or sentient being) can tell us they know is one of the few tools we have to verify that we are not just believing in fantasies.

3) Perhaps our Fundamental Perceptual Bias is that there is some kind of external world and that we the perceiver are somehow separate. The self (the ‘I’) is everything seemingly under personal control; the world is everything else including most of your body most of the time.

Some evidence for this is a fact that we all can experience if we pay enough attention: that when we sleep the world undergoes changes unbidden by us and in a more or less predictable and coherent way. You scarcely can shape them and only most generally predict them with any warranted  certainty but they happen; every event from the sunrise to the digestion of the meal the evening before. This suggests that you and the world are separate.

And yet your body is embedded within the world as you perceive it. And you can (apparently) make changes to the world either in choice of where to place your attentions, or what voluntary actions to initiate (or refuse). These can lead to changes in the fully external world which are more or less permanent depending upon the lifespan of the phenomena in question (from throwing a pebble into a pond where the ripples are short lived, to throwing a baseball thru a window where the effects are a permanent as the material of the window).

HOW CAN WE TEST WHAT WE (THINK THAT WE) KNOW?

We have discovered a method to carefully test what we think we know about the universe, we have come to call it the ‘Scientific Method’. Through precise activity and careful observations  we try to express as succinctly as possible, in some symbolic language, our observations (along with how we created or found the situation and our procedures for observation of the results). These can be understood by our fellow humans and they can conduct the same activity and make observations in the same conditions. Then they express their agreement with, or objection(s) to, our conclusions about what we observed. This is the essence of a properly done scientific experiment.

Either way this is evidence that there is a real enough external world and if both sets of observations are in agreement then that is evidence some degree of ‘absolute’ Truth in the expressed observations. At least the truth so expressed is likely to be as close to TRUTH as we are ever likely to get.

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT WE ARE NOT JUST INVENTING OUR KNOWLEDGE?

If the world is Real then your subjective experience is likely to be Real as well, though what you KNOW could be incorrect and you must test it with the tools at your disposal, i.e. your reason, logic and judgement. Even using the scientific method you must be careful not to lie to yourself or to allow your wishful thinking or desire to color your observations. It would do us all well to remember the advice of physicist Richard Feynman: “…you are the easiest person [for yourself]  to fool.” This is why the essence of the method is verification by the observations of others who are trying to reproduce your actions but disprove your conclusions. If they can’t then maybe it is OK for you to believe your conclusions are reasonable.

WHAT IF EVERYTHING WE EXPERIENCE IS AN ILLUSION?

If our sensory observations are but illusory then we are never likely to be able to get far enough separation from them to be able to ascertain that fact (if it indeed were a fact) so such discussion, far from being about anything absolute is simply idle speculation or else the stuff of fantasy (or nightmares) whose place is in fictions that entertain and amuse.

If you believe in imaginary ideas they will most likely  be of little use and eventually will prove false or empty. At least with sensory data that has some mutual verification it is more likely that these will remain true evidence and be able to support your manipulations and bring about change to the REAL world, perhaps even changes that are closer to what you thought or wanted.

-ccc- SJ Levy (inspired by a Seattle Socrates Cafe discussion about “Are there any Absolutes?” on Oct 28, 2009).

(Creative Commons Copyright)

Hi Sid,

First off, you’re correct in your understanding: Darwinists of today (known more formally as evolutionary biologists) never use the term social Darwinism nor apply social Darwinist ideas to people (though I am sure someone can locate a rogue biologist who does); most of them regard the term as illegitimate since human culture–which includes political action–has (and had even in Darwin’s day) replaced nature as the prime force upon human survival.

Those who coined the term in the 19th century (Darwin didn’t use it) were social progressives attempting to show how every natural law in the universe leads to progress. It seemed at the time that life was indeed looking up for many folks, some more than others. Like elites in other times and places, those atop the Victorian social order placed themselves at the top of the ‘natural’ order of things, though Darwin himself (in The Descent Of Man, a follow-up to On the Origin of Species) cautioned against what his cousin Francis Galton approvingly (and what we today disparagingly) would term eugenics:

…if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Many who still do use the term social Darwinism today are the ultra-rich (and their apologists) who want to justify positions of privilege, just as robber baron capitalists in the late 1800′s justified cutthroat business dealings. Ironically, proponents of social Darwinist mythology (and its ‘Survival of the Fittest’ myth) include a contingent of fundamentalist Christians who firmly believe in God and a divine plan, all the while calling for removal of evolution in school curricula (and, in a curious non sequitur, lower taxes for the rich).

Myths in the modern world are tools we humans have at our disposal to convince others that certain ideas are ‘true’. Those in positions of wealth and influence have used the social Darwinism myth in order to preserve their positions of privilege. They need only convince their fellow humans (or at least some of them) to accept a myth as valid. Social Darwinism is, primarily, a story about why the losers of cultural and political battles ought to give up fighting and accept the status quo as not only natural, expected, or preordained, but even desirable.

Members of the privileged class don’t have to prove their fitness in accordance with the theory, since, as far as they are concerned, it’s a self-evident truth. It doesn’t matter if they truly believe in the myth. Though, personally, I suspect most of them do. It’s only important to get the culture at large (or at the very least those who might work for change) to accept the myth.

If you can get your opponents to accept their status as inferior (or beaten), then you have won the war without fighting. The social Darwinist myth holds that everyone is (and was destined to be) in their ‘proper’ (social) place and that things could not have turned out differently, which implies that no change in position, influence (i.e., voice in society or government), or wealth is needed, nor is any desirable since intentional change ‘violates’ the ‘natural’ order’ of things.

The mythology of social Darwinism ignores or outright denies a number of facts:

1) Survival is not of the fittest (at least not often) but merely the luckiest of the least unfit. Mediocrity can thrive as long as it is does not possess a trait that actively hurts its chances of survival, and even the not-so-fit can survive as long as it is lucky; selection works in the negative: culling the unfit. Selection has no mechanism to eliminate all competition to the most fit. Survival only proves luck or lack of bad genes or traits.

2) As the environment changes, those that were most fit can quickly become trapped by their fitness to the old conditions, unable to adapt fast enough to the new ones. In other words, fitness is not a static condition.

3) Even if the social Darwinist myth were true, we humans needn’t accept its outcomes. At least in the modern world, we have enough resources to create a more equitable distribution than that made by chance.

4) There is no divine plan ordaining the lucky few as the ‘fittest’. Biologists and geneticists have demonstrated (with support of computer models) that, given enough time and small changes, no plan is necessary. (See Darwin’s Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett for more detail.)

5) In our human world, many of the pressures on survival or success are human-made and therefore open to change by human beings. Even were there a divine plan, if we humans have been granted free will, God couldn’t guarantee that pivotal historical figures would come to the ‘right’ conclusions. Otherwise, there is no free will at all. So this further puts the onus upon all of us to act fairly towards each other instead of pushing unsupportable social fictions about the fitness of some individual or group.

Thus, I think one can reasonably argue that social Darwinism, in its simplest, crudest form is mythology since it explains nothing real or active in the present day. It is an unsupportable story (a social lie) used to justify immoral actions or conditions. Its moral lesson is that those with little ought to accept their proper place.

Well, I hope this is food for thought or discussion. Feel free to comment as you wish.

It is cool to hear that your group is similar in size and dynamic to ours. I wish you all well in your endeavors from all of us at Socrates Cafe Seattle to you in Okemos Michigan.

Best Regards,

Stu Levy, Co-facilitator SCS