82,891
edits
Doubt: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
Relationships develop as ''markets'' develop, as ''technology'' develops, as ''competitors'' develop and as ''threats'' develop. Markets, technology, competitors and threats ''interact''. The landscape shape-shifts. This is [[complex]], [[non-linear]] and [[unpredictable]]. We do not yet know where we are going. A contract which tries to anticipate and codify the future only ''ossifies'' it: in presuming our present boundaries are fixed, it commits us to just one kind of certainty: ''[[obsolescence]]''. It entrenches perspectives; binds us to methods which will become outdated. It ''blinds'' us to new ones which will be resolutely better. | Relationships develop as ''markets'' develop, as ''technology'' develops, as ''competitors'' develop and as ''threats'' develop. Markets, technology, competitors and threats ''interact''. The landscape shape-shifts. This is [[complex]], [[non-linear]] and [[unpredictable]]. We do not yet know where we are going. A contract which tries to anticipate and codify the future only ''ossifies'' it: in presuming our present boundaries are fixed, it commits us to just one kind of certainty: ''[[obsolescence]]''. It entrenches perspectives; binds us to methods which will become outdated. It ''blinds'' us to new ones which will be resolutely better. | ||
A yen for [[certainty]] ''fossilises'' our commercial expectations on the day we form them. | |||
Worse yet, it encourages those already in relationships to consider matters settled; impervious to improvement — even to ''discussion''. They might even ''avoid'' talking to each other, for fear of prejudicing their carefully constructed legal “protections”.<ref>Often unjustifiably. See: [[estoppel by waiver]].</ref> They may even feel, without [[Legal]]’s sanction, they ''cannot''. Things are at a pretty pass when market counterparties avoid talking to each other. | Worse yet, it encourages those already in relationships to consider matters settled; impervious to improvement — even to ''discussion''. They might even ''avoid'' talking to each other, for fear of prejudicing their carefully constructed legal “protections”.<ref>Often unjustifiably. See: [[estoppel by waiver]].</ref> They may even feel, without [[Legal]]’s sanction, they ''cannot''. Things are at a pretty pass when market counterparties avoid talking to each other. | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
The best answer will rarely issue from a [[legal eagle]]’s beak: “well, why in God’s name are you asking ''me''? Shouldn’t you ask your ''client''?” | The best answer will rarely issue from a [[legal eagle]]’s beak: “well, why in God’s name are you asking ''me''? Shouldn’t you ask your ''client''?” | ||
For, really, what possible use is a clause your legal teams hammered out 10 years ago, in getting to the heart of the matter? If, now, your client would ''not'' like you to behave in this way, what difference does it make, to your ongoing relationship, that an ancient document says that you ''may''? Or, for that matter, ''vice versa''?<ref>Much more likely, [[the contract is silent|it ''won’t'' say you ''can’t'',]] which doesn’t really help anyone.</ref> | For, really, what possible use is a clause your legal teams, hammered out 10 years ago, in getting to the heart of the matter? If, now, your client would ''not'' like you to behave in this way, what difference does it make, to your ongoing relationship, that an ancient document says that you ''may''? Or, for that matter, ''vice versa''?<ref>Much more likely, [[the contract is silent|it ''won’t'' say you ''can’t'',]] which doesn’t really help anyone.</ref> | ||
In any case, isn’t that kind of doubt ''creative'': an opportunity for a conversation, which might lead, who knows where? | In any case, isn’t that kind of doubt ''creative'': an opportunity for a conversation, which might lead, who knows where? | ||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
[[Certainty]] is appropriate to a [[simple]] system. It is the stuff of [[algorithm]]; of formal logic, of if-''this''-then-''that'' statements; of an equation to be solved. Where you are ''certain'' you can deploy [[playbook]]s and [[runbook]]s, your machines run on autopilot, your people are scarce and your contract is little more than a [[service level agreement|schedule of works]]. | [[Certainty]] is appropriate to a [[simple]] system. It is the stuff of [[algorithm]]; of formal logic, of if-''this''-then-''that'' statements; of an equation to be solved. Where you are ''certain'' you can deploy [[playbook]]s and [[runbook]]s, your machines run on autopilot, your people are scarce and your contract is little more than a [[service level agreement|schedule of works]]. | ||
As the information revolution unfolds, this is a twilight world. Margins diminish. As dusk falls we scramble around, collecting ever fewer pennies in front of the onward progress of the same, monstrous, [[Entropy|entropic]] steam-roller. The better, and more widely dispersed our technology becomes, the less return there is to make. There is no assured annuity from computerisation. Just ask Eastman Kodak, Sears or the people who made aerogrammes. Ask the Parisienne artisan weavers put out of work by Joseph Jacquard’s new, [[Jacquard loom|automated looms]]. They | As the information revolution unfolds, this is a twilight world. Margins diminish. As dusk falls we scramble around, collecting ever fewer pennies in front of the onward progress of the same, monstrous, [[Entropy|entropic]] steam-roller. The better, and more widely dispersed our technology becomes, the less return there is to make. There is no assured annuity from computerisation. Just ask Eastman Kodak, Sears or the people who made aerogrammes. Ask the Parisienne artisan weavers put out of work by Joseph Jacquard’s new, [[Jacquard loom|automated looms]]. They may not have thrown their clogs into the machines as urban myth suggests, but yet they could not fight history. | ||
A world in which all outcomes ''can be coded for'' is one where ''no-one wants to play any more''. It is fully priced. Margins are at zero. There is no surprise; there is no risk; all punchlines are known. It is a life of noughts and crosses<ref>''Tic-tac-toe'' to you, my American friends. The same will, in theory, one day be true of [[chess]] and [[go]] — but the calculations are exponentially harder.</ref> and not [[chess]], much less bridge or poker. At every point, there is a known optimal move: ''including at the first move''. If the optimal move is a [[known known]] (as it is in noughts and crosses, but is not ''yet'' in [[chess]]) the game is ''solved'': ''there is no point in playing''. This is not a competition of wits, but of memory and data processing power. That’s [[certainty]], and it isn’t interesting. | A world in which all outcomes ''can be coded for'' is one where ''no-one wants to play any more''. It is fully priced. Margins are at zero. There is no surprise; there is no risk; all punchlines are known. It is a life of noughts and crosses<ref>''Tic-tac-toe'' to you, my American friends. The same will, in theory, one day be true of [[chess]] and [[go]] — but the calculations are exponentially harder.</ref> and not [[chess]], much less bridge or poker. At every point, there is a known optimal move: ''including at the first move''. If the optimal move is a [[known known]] (as it is in noughts and crosses, but is not ''yet'' in [[chess]]) the game is ''solved'': ''there is no point in playing''. This is not a competition of wits, but of memory and data processing power. That’s [[certainty]], and it isn’t interesting. | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
===Doubt as a self-enforcing moderator of extreme behaviour=== | ===Doubt as a self-enforcing moderator of extreme behaviour=== | ||
Examples of “[[risk compensation]]” where the introduction of safety measures — which we may characterise as “enhancements to the ''certainty'' of safety” — lead to ''increased'' risk-taking are legion.<ref>Anti-lock breaks, seatbelts, speed limits, cycle helmets, ski helmets, skydiving safety equipment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation.</ref> Where town planners have removed all traffic controls, signage and control, a dramatic ''reduction'' in speed and | Examples of “[[risk compensation]]”, where the introduction of safety measures — which we may characterise as “enhancements to the ''certainty'' of safety” — lead to ''increased'' risk-taking, are legion.<ref>Anti-lock breaks, seatbelts, speed limits, cycle helmets, ski helmets, skydiving safety equipment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation.</ref> Where town planners have removed all traffic controls, signage and control, a dramatic ''reduction'' in accidents, speed and yet an increase in system flow, has followed.<ref>An [https://web.archive.org/web/20150924012452/http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/Evaluation%20Laweiplein.pdf evaluation] of the ''Laweiplein'' scheme in Drachten, Netherlands, which replaced a set of traffic lights with an open square with a roundabout and pedestrian crossings, found that traffic now flows more freely at a constant rate and with reduced congestion, shorter delays and improved capacity.</ref> | ||
Doubt counsels caution. It recommends contingency. It declares knowledge provisional. It is open-minded, non-judgmental, it is the preparedness to admit error. In our polarised times, it is doubt, not certainty, that is lacking. It is not the wilful ''suspicion'' of truth, but a dogmatic conviction in it, that fractures the peace. | Doubt counsels caution. It recommends contingency. It declares knowledge provisional. It is open-minded, non-judgmental, it is the preparedness to admit error. In our polarised times, it is doubt, not certainty, that is lacking. It is not the wilful ''suspicion'' of truth, but a dogmatic conviction in it, that fractures the peace. | ||
To aspire to certainty is wish for finality; completeness; the limits of our commitment to each other, and the arbitrary end of affairs we would be better served by continuing. If a relationship is productive now why end it? If a relationship is not, why prolong it? If it is not satisfactory, why not change it?<ref>For an excellent argument along these lines see {{Author|David Graeber}}, {{br|Debt: The First 5,000 Years}}</ref> | To aspire to certainty is wish for finality; completeness; the limits of our commitment to each other, and the arbitrary end of affairs we would be better served by continuing. If a relationship is productive now, why end it? If a relationship is not, why prolong it? If it is not satisfactory, why not change it?<ref>For an excellent argument along these lines see {{Author|David Graeber}}, {{br|Debt: The First 5,000 Years}}</ref> | ||
==={{t|Epistemology}} of [[certainty]]=== | ==={{t|Epistemology}} of [[certainty]]=== | ||
And so we get down to philosophical nuts and bolts. Truth, free will, knowledge. May we take [[Descartes]] as read? The philosophy gets more interesting a little later on. Let me tell you my dirty little secret folks: ''I’m a relativist''. | And so we get down to philosophical nuts and bolts. Truth, free will, knowledge. May we take [[Descartes]] as read? The philosophy gets more interesting a little later on. Let me tell you my dirty little secret, folks: ''I’m a relativist''. | ||
If we take it that “[[truth]] is a property of a sentence, not of the world”<ref>Richard Rorty: {{br|Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity}}.</ref> and ''a sentence is an artefact of a language'', then, for there to be no doubt between us, our language would have to be a ''closed logical system'', in which both of us were fully conversant. Not only are natural languages ''nothing like'' closed logical systems ''in practice'' — they are loose, littered with ambiguities, metaphor, slang, malapropism and error: it is hard to draw boundaries around them — but they ''cannot'' be closed logical systems ''even in theory''. | If we take it that “[[truth]] is a property of a sentence, not of the world”<ref>Richard Rorty: {{br|Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity}}.</ref> and ''a sentence is an artefact of a language'', then, for there to be no doubt between us, our language would have to be a ''closed logical system'', in which both of us were fully conversant. Not only are natural languages ''nothing like'' closed logical systems ''in practice'' — they are loose, littered with ambiguities, [[metaphor]], slang, malapropism and error: it is hard to draw boundaries around them — but they ''cannot'' be closed logical systems ''even in theory''. | ||
This observation we owe to [[Kurt Gödel]]. The same one snookered Bertrand Russell: not even ''mathematics'' is a closed logical system. It also snookers [[reductionism]] and [[modernism]]: a single, transcendent set of axiomatic truths is an ''incoherent'' idea.<ref>Note: not ''false'', but ''incoherent''. ''Meaningless''. Impossible to consistently articulate.</ref> So is | This observation we owe to [[Kurt Gödel]]. The same one snookered Bertrand Russell: not even ''mathematics'' is a closed logical system. It also snookers [[reductionism]] and [[modernism]]: a single, transcendent set of axiomatic truths is an ''incoherent'' idea.<ref>Note: not ''false'', but ''incoherent''. ''Meaningless''. Impossible to consistently articulate.</ref> So is any [[ontology]] that depends on one. | ||
Now we can, with our word games, do our best minimise indeterminacy. This is what legal language is ''meant'' to do, by convention eliminating [[metaphor]], slang and informal constructions; generally sacrificing ''elegance'' for [[certainty]]. Where there remains potential ambiguity, legal language tries to further diminish with [[definitions]]. | Now we can, with our word games, do our best minimise indeterminacy. This is what legal language is ''meant'' to do, by convention eliminating [[metaphor]], slang and informal constructions; generally sacrificing ''elegance'' for [[certainty]]. Where there remains potential ambiguity, legal language tries to further diminish with [[definitions]]. | ||