Bias of the Self and Immediate Existence

Bias of the Self and Immediate Existence

 

    My self is largely aware of its person more than that of any other. This is not meant a description on the moral definition of selfishness or selflessness, but a simplistic statement regarding the natural and physical state of a conscious being. Like a color bound to an object in nature, the idea of a particularized “I” is bound to me.

     At least two concerning results have grown out of the above state that raise concern. Although an individual has the natural state of concrete individuality, his or her placement in a world of natural objects and other egos is just as vivid an experience. This positioning one is found in, can lead to a dubious individual bias. It can also lead to temporal bias within a group mind.

    Isaac Newton and G.W. Leibniz had an academic debate over whether physics should hold absolute or relative definitions of space and time. While Newton's ideas (structured around absolut space and time) were given popularity and structure due to the political and religious thought of the time, Leibnizian relative space/time theory was far more compatible (though not as developed) with Einstein's. Space and time described through relativity by Einstein eventually superseded Newtonian physics in the professional world of science. This example shows the danger of individual bias. Newton enjoyed decades of academic and social recognition. Leibniz was criticized and scorned for even trying to offer alternative ideas to the brilliance of Newton. Though Newton's ideas have of course had positive impact, dogmatism slowed progress and the presentation of other alternatives, perhaps even better ones. The scientist must attempt escaping this (how easy it is to escape is another subject all-together) tendency. Newton and the leaders of the time felt a bias about Newton's individuality, and it lead to an irrational rejection of other thinkers. One can find this bias in religion as well, as faith placed in the superiority of one individual has lead many a person to sacrificial violence, or acts of war.

     The above example also brings out the problem of bias within a group at a given time. Academic and political leaders of the world had been committed to a more basic and absolute description of the physical world since the early days of Greek philosophy. While it grew increasingly complex, many people in the age of Leibniz and Newton were slow to adapt or even give attention to something as difficult as relativity. Religion found compatibility with Newton, but found difficulty with relative space and time. Yet even in time as the scientific community gave way to Einstein's relativity, religion did not lose its hold. In fact, as physics changed, the description of god did as well. If a universal perspective grows more complex, a god must meet that complexity. Religious leaders feared relativity, but in reality all it did was alter the framework of their religious descriptions. Religion is varied however, and so is non-religion. Tainting the scientist's view cannot be attributed to religion, but rather to a general arrogance, a stubborn need to maintain the accepted notions of the academic, social, and political world. All this does not eliminate Newtonian theory in the least, as it is obviously still utilized regularly. However, Einstein's theories are now largely considered more apt for addressing new problems better. So what one should see is not a casual rise and fall of scientific ideology, but rather a plurality of ways to approach science or any field of life. Ultimately, through realization and mobilization of this plurality, and a fusion of individual ideologies, better science (or thought in general) can be built.

     Examples from history should cause awareness of possible bias within our selves and our time as humanity. In fact, it is a somewhat inescapable bias. Individuality is natural, and it seems realizing one's potential is key to positivity. However, potential is much different from any absolute inspiration or knowledge. Just as brilliant thinker's ideas have been remolded or replaced, so will the ideas of today no matter what the field. This is not to say that smaller strands of mathematical formulas or scientific theories cannot last the span of human existence, but the broader fields these strands cater to, have always changed. Basic mathematics have been used in many areas of academia and life for centuries and most likely will maintain that grip. However, mathematical principles cannot stop the change of perspective that arises within a broader field such as philosophy of math, or again a science such as physics. The implications of this philosophically is too much to explore here, but at the very least it should veer the individual away from trusting himself too much. Also, it may raise warning to giving emotional and irrational value to a community of individuals at a given time. Be it science, philosophy, history, lifestyle, or religion, the individual should realize delusion of himself and time. It is not a delusion in which the individual or community cannot hope to find or utilize problem solving ideas, but it is a delusion to think old ideas are complete or best. This delusion is an abstract valuation by the individual or community. Bias of the sort risks redundancy and slows progress. Any attempt at “truth,” or ranking academic particulars of the world does not hold any kind of eternal or absolute knowledge.