We are fed with information every moment of our lives, have you ever stopped and wondered whether the information is the right one ?
Let's take an example:
"The American dental association quoted Scientific American research paper suggesting that..."
is a typical line that we come across.
How much of the information we get is 'hearsay' vs 'real'?
This is what I call it as 'Derivative' information versus 'Root' information !
What I mean by root information is - you got this information from the very source that knew where and when it happened - basically a first hand report!
Whereas - Derivative information is - more of an Hearsay - the information has been passed on through multiple 'reflectors' (apart from the 'Sender'! i.e.) and then reached you.
In the example above -
Derivative 1 - The Dental association is giving information to you
Derivative 2 - The Research paper itself
Derivative 3 - The paper would have sought inputs from different books, interviews etc.
Derivative 4 - The books (interviewer) in turn would have got the information from somewhere else!!
4+ Derivatives for a single information thread!
And as with all 'communication', there is a Value addition (Distortion really!) that happens at every level.
How many of us ask the first of the Socratic ("The test of three") question
"Is this the Truth?"
Let's see a few more scenarios:
A Novel, Article, News - All these are opinions, views, quotes offered by different people as they see the world! sometimes these at best are Claims and may not be facts!
A TV ad - say for cooking oil - stating that that particular oil is good for your heart!
A politician - stating that this party has done so much good to a particular region
A 'god man' (I am intentionally using this word) deciphering the spiritual text to a group - Typically quoting from multiple sources which are already derivatives of some earlier known information!
The question to us is - "Do we take the derivative information and work on it?" or "Try to seek the Root?"
Else,
Are we limited by our nature to keep things simple and not worry about too much details?
Would love to hear your thoughts.
Raju_the_Seeker
Nice thoughts!
ReplyDeleteSpeaking for myself, I generally go with derivative information when I am not personally attached to it, multiple derivative sources confirm the same thing AND the group where I am using this derivative information accepts it.
If any of those three conditions is not met (either I have a personal stake in it OR multiple derivative sources conflict OR the audience I am dealing with questions it) then I try to go as much close to the source as posible.
I guess the bottomline is how important the truth is for us personally. I am not at a point where I treat the entire world as my family and worry about every fact with same passion. A good social example can be a news item about an alledged corruption by a public official. As long as I don't have to deal with that office, it is a casual discussion. When a time comes that I have to deal with that office, I try to find out how much truth there is to it and how it impacts me.
Keep the thoughts coming.
Satyakanth
The term 'root' you use refers to an 'axiom' in mathematics, a statement which is assumed to be the truth in that field of derivative. For instance, a + a = 2a is valid in the field of arithmetic based on number system 1, 2, 3... So all derivatives will be valid in that field. As long as you stay in that 'field' all the logical derivatives can be accepted as 'truth' as they all start from the root and via logical steps they are arrived at. In another field of set theory,for instance, when a set 'a' is added the same set 'a' the result is NOT 2a but only 'a'. All the logical derivatives used in the numbering system field will not be valid in the set theory - meaning that the derivatives will not 'true' So the derivatives based on a set of 'axioms' may not be true in another instance where the axioms are different. It is therefore necessary to establish a set of 'axioms' which are invariant in that field of knowledge and obtain derivations using 'logic for that field. This the Mathematicians call as theorem-proving which can then become 'true' and therefore an 'axiom' for all subsequent investigations / derivations That is we accept 'tested' derivatives / statements also as true.
ReplyDeleteThis testing process is generally accepted by humans as the number of times / places it has been cited as testimony of the 'truth'. If it is based purely on observations, subjectivity of the observer comes to play. But if observations are generally true like Sun rises in the East, then there is an axiom (universal Law of Attraction) behind it and a logic which derives the orbit of the Earth round the Sun.But if you discover a planet turning West to East or apply a different Law of Attraction, then the statement 'Sun rises in the East' which was derived earlier will not be true.
Thus, it is the seeker who has to define his field and a set of axioms from his observations can be derived and thus accepted as 'truths' becoming an axiom for the next level.
More as we proceed,
R Vasudevan
Mama, Being the Mathematician that you are, it was a succinct explanation.
DeleteYour definition of Axiom as 'assumed to be truth' is where probably the crux lies.
As a faculty I am given some material to deliver, if I have to do justice then I need to understand the material and to that extent 'seek' as many references so that the conviction / belief that - Many people are saying and hence it is assumed to be true!
The issue I am seeing is that we tend to believe the derivative information so much that we forget to validate it!
There could a time when the very axioms are reset / redefined.
Possible?
Thanks for your thoughts Kanth.
ReplyDeleteDoes the conditions apply even if the knowledge/information comes form our Parents / Books that we believe in / Teachers / bosses ?
Good one Raju, Is n't the argument somewhat similar to the logic of Trusting/Relying on a wheel versus figuring out/reinventing wheel? When do we do the former or when do we go for the latter? I liked the axiomatic explanation given by Vasudevan. Whether we do the former or latter is directly dependent on the credibility/trust/reliance we can place on the source. Here I recall a quote I think attributed to Newton .. I could see much farther because I was standing on the shoulders of giants (Scientists ahead of him). At the sametime, I am sure he would have not taken everything at face value and certainly would have digged deeper .. It is a definite combination of the two, but in what percentage (Well, that's very subjective, Is n't it?)
ReplyDeleteAppreciate your views Jagan.
DeleteThe key is the relevance to our daily tasks that we undertake, as we grow there were many things that our parents, teachers have 'told' us and we have taken it as it is.
Probably we are creating our own derivative knowledge based on our experience and passing it on to others - our children, participants, mentees etc.
The question is 'Can the student outgrow the Teacher? - by questioning these assumptions'
How many of us are 'tied' to the metaphorical chord 'like the elephant to a thin chain' - not knowing out potential :-(