Find the Truth Brief

All information has the elements of being, virtue, and essence. In this post, we are concerned with virtue or truth.  Understanding the scope and limits of truth is fundamental to resolving challenges. Operations and project managers must somehow figure out the strength of information fed to them. Some truths are assumptive and others are fact based. Truth based on assumptions are only as strong as the validity of the assumptions. In the Strength of Truth Scale, Figure 1, truth ranges from a correspondent theory of truth to the epistemological theory of truth.

Figure 1: Strength of Truth Scale

While these are grand sounding terms they are quite simple. Correspondent truths are empirical and fact based. For example, water is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.  The epistemological truth is a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge. Epistemic truth is built upon a set of good assumptions at the outset and then explores sound reasoning for higher level arguments. A good assumption is one that is supported through sound inductive or deductive logic and not out of some sort of personal sense of what is good. Simply put, various worldviews begin with a set of assumptions that lead to different conclusions. Unfortunately, not all assumptions are well supported through inductive or deductive  logic. For example, some cosmological beliefs make the assumption that the universe is self-perpetuating despite the lack of evidence to inductively arrive at that conclusion. The well accepted Law of Diminishing Returns and Godel’s Law of Incompleteness both remark that self-perpetuation is impossible. Nonetheless, the assumption of a self-perpetuating universe is made in order to explore thoughts and possible outcomes of a self-perpetuating universe also known as abiogenesis in evolution. Despite the underlying foundational truth being unsupported, higher order reasoning has the appearance of support built on correspondant truths relative to the weak or unsupported epistemic truth. Worldviews are built exclusively upon epistemological truths and often use correspondent truths in order to justify the higher level arguments within the worldview.

Unfortunately, many people are not genuinely interested in an accurate truth. Instead, they choose a truth for various personal or political motives then desperately seek to validate that truth often to the chagrin of hoaxes, pseudo-sciences, fallacies, and poor reason. The objective is to keep the discussion focused on the strongest epistemic truth that is best harmonized with the sound reasoned arguments. These sound reasoned arguments must demonstrate that all the laws, assumptions, and premises are not contradictory demonstrating internal consistency to the original epistemic truths. This is taking into account the whole or whollistic thinking.

A Duty To The Strongest Truth

A project manager often has to deal with many cultures undergirded by Worldviews. Worldviews affect pretty much everything humans do and think. For example, Todd Pitock discusses in his article Science and Islam in Conflict that the Prophet, El Naggar, claims there are 360 joints in the body and that Islamic researchers corroborate the Prophet's claim as such knowledge is only given by Allah. However, the secular medical community reports that the number of joints varies from person to person having on average 307 joints (Pitock, 2008, p 226). The problem demonstrated by Pitock is a lense or filter that does not take into account the empirical findings. While project managers may not deal with issues of the number joints, project managers will deal with these lenses and filters that color truths. Truths influenced by culture and worldviews must be reconciled demonstrating beauty. This beauty is not an erotic beauty but instead an appreciative and harmonizing beauty. A beauty that demonstrates fluid relationships and synchronous charm of the claims made. Nonetheless, there are some fallacies humans commit regularly that disrupt the beauty and weaken truth which leads further into a problem of credible intellectual inquiry that plagues much of the discourse today.

Credible Inquiry

Intellectual inquiry is the rigorous process through which questions are postulated and credible answers are achieved. Reason and commonsense are not one and the same. Reason is the ability to move beyond awareness to develop logical understanding. Whereas commonsense is when an argument appeals to  innate sensibilities. When the discussion comes to truly difficult, obscure, or deep issues there is a human temptation to retreat to unreasoned beliefs often wrongfully calling it commonsense. To deal with this the ancient Greek philosophers attempted to establish formalized human reasoning using unassailable rules of logical deduction. The Greeks would stand upon flat elevated rocks and orate views to those who gathered, questions would be asked and reasoned answered given. In more current times, stereotypical intellectuals would sit in high back leather chairs and smoke pipes in dimly lit mahogany rooms and exchange views. Today, in communities of disciplined thought questions are carefully asked, answers are sought with deliberate rigor, findings are reasoned then published for peer review. The purpose of such conversations is not as much to espouse views, gain followers, or confirm a belief but to discern the strength or weakness of a particular finding based on evidence and reason. This is the model for not only scientific investigation but project managers who need to get at underlying and hidden issues in their projects.

Despite the very rigorous process of drawing conclusions from data in a scientific investigation, common discussions in the public sphere commit numerous fallacies that project managers may encounter. Jamie Whyte argues in his book, “Crimes Against Logic”, that many people feel that their opinions are somehow sacred. They possess a sense that others should handle their opinions with tremendous reverence. They are not open to thoughts that they could be incorrect. Often people argue they have a right-to-an-opinion when disputed in order to deflect the dispute to a discussion of rights. Whyte comments that when there is a right, there is also a duty. He further asks three questions:

1. Does a right-to-an-opinion require me to agree? NO. Both parties have the right to their own opinions and agreeing would violate the right. The duty to support another opinion violates one’s own right to an opinion.
2. Does a right-to-an-opinion require me to listen? NO. Listening to unlimited opinions is not practical. Thus, it cannot be a duty that is fulfilled naturally.
3. Does a right-to-an-opinion allow an opinion to persist? NO. Any entitlement or merit to an opinion, in an epistemic sensibility, is founded upon good reason such as evidence or sound logic.

If there is a right-to-an-opinion then such a right cannot settle disputes because another’s rights cannot be violated (Whyte, 2004).  There is paradoxical tension in this right if no one can be right and no one can be wrong. Hence, there cannot be a right-to-an-opinion because the duties cannot be executed naturally or practically.

The matter-of-opinion needs to be addressed as well. Whyte furthers his concept remarking that a matter-of-opinion has no objective standard by which to judge. He comments that facts do not rely on opinions and facts do not emerge by having a mere belief in them. Therefore, matters-of-opinion are not relevant, demonstrate no clear understanding, and should not exist. Authoritative opinions do not rely on a voice or character as evidence but instead rely on solid logic, evidence, and reasoned expertise to decide within certain limits or scope of a discipline of thought or responsibility. A fallacy emerges when literal authority is confounded with metaphorical authority transferring truth as a matter-of-fact outside the scope or limits of expert’s literal authority (Whyte, 2004). Transferring truths outside of one’s literal authority has become a challenge in current public dialogues involving scientific inquiry. Everyone seems to be an armchair expert. 

In addition to the challenge of transferring truths outside the limits of literal authority, is credible inquiry. During a speech made by Michael Crichton at CalTech, Crichton called the famous Drake Equation used by the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, SETI, a serious-looking equation. He suggested that the equation gave SETI a footing as legitimate intellectual inquiry. Then Mr. Crichton exposed a fallacy with the formula remarking that none of the terms can be known or reasonably estimated. He comments that the formula is simply prejudice. He concludes that the Drake equation is pure speculation in quasi-scientific trappings (Crichton, 2003). Again this a demonstration when a truth is being pursued through the appreance of legitimate inquiry.  Project managers may encounter this problem with financial justifications and other studies that have prejedice or bias built in to them.

In conclusion, today’s public sphere is wrought with a lack of honest discourse. Sides draw a line and square off before throwing irreverent jabs at each other’s desperate attempt to prove their choice of a truth. Discussions and debates are often met with vile rejection of opposing viewpoints that are often based on a high confidence in a personal opinion that pre-empts the searches for understanding and truth. Simply put conclusions come before the research. Worse yet is condemnation-without-investigation which assumes that truth is already known and is very dangerous in projects. Many believe that each human has a right-to-an-opinion which never resolves the dispute but prolongs the banter. Incumbent upon all humans is a duty to pursue, advocate, listen, evaluate, and embrace the strongest truth avoiding opinions. The ole adage still applies; the strongest truth will set you free. Once free of pseudo-sciences, fallacious rights, and weak arguments, one may meaningfully arrive at greater successes. 

For the project manager, success mean projects that complete under budget and on schedule with the grade of excellence desired. The project manager must always focus the effort on the project. For example, arguments and debates between indivuduals need to be refocused between the project and an individual. People enjoy fantastizing which can obfuscate truth. Einstein once remarked, “Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” (Calaprice, 2005, pg 9).  The human imagination helps unlock knowledge making breakthroughs. Nonetheless, there is a difference between the sage use of the imagination and fantasy truths. Again the project manager needs to be on guard for presumptions of having the truth or truths that are of fantasy.  

Truth is not evasive. Although, one must persue truths seeking the strongest support for truth. The project manager has such a duty to truth and the resultant ethics during a project. 

References:

Calaprice, Alice (2005)  The New Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press

Critchton, Michael (January 17, 2003) Aliens Cause Global Warming, Referenced June 14, 2009 from www.MichaelCrichton.com

Pitock, T. (2008). The best american science and nature writing: science and islam in conflict. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. pp 224-237.

Whyte, Jamie, (2004) Crimes Against Logic, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-144643-5