What is Knowledge? And what heated debates forget — Part 2
Dogmatism vs Pragmatism
A recap from the last part, and the key aspects brought into focus were:
- Arguments in relationships
- Red vs Blue
- Absolutism vs Investigation
- Europeans and their Renaissance
This part continues by delving deeper into the contesting sides of arguments. Exploring factors that aggravate a conversation, transforming it into a battleground.
Undoubtedly at the level outside intellectual jurisprudence, difference of opinion between opposing perspectives is a contest of right vs wrong. Neither side takes interest in listening to understand the other’s argument. So the exchange inevitably becomes listening to reply. Loathsome indeed.
Guiding this writing beckons defining two important identities — Dogmatism and Pragmatism, as hinted at the closing of the previous part.
Dogmatism — the tendency to lay down principles as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others.
Pragmatism — an approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.
Believing in an idea as absolute and unquestionable is a quality associated with dogmatism. Questioning an idea as uncertain until proven through measurable results is therefore pragmatism.
Most conversations lack pragmatism, or have pragmatism eventually parked along the sidewalk in the ensuring brawl. People choose to be dogmatic because it establishes a strong platform to launch attacks from. The fervour people find themselves through dogmatism is not someone someone can find through pragmatism. For dogmatism builds a citadel; one knows the supposed defence. Unlike pragmatism, which is fluid, and mobile; lacking a clear presence.
Through history conflicts have been largely on the possession of resources. Since their scarcity, and thus accumulation has always represented power. Thus dogmatic ideas have driven conflicts; holding conviction in making decisions to admonish, banish, tarnish and garnish. A certain aura of belligerence looms around beliefs with conviction. Apparently Imperialism, and 20th century conflicts are paramount exhibits of the outcome from absolute convictions.
Renaissance paved the idea to question any and everything, refusing to accept anything as absolute based on facevalue or word of mouth alone. Questions developed investigation as tools to mine information, much in the way axes and pickaxes are tools to mine wood and mineral ore. The procedure would eventually become Science. Invention of the Scientific Method — heuristics.
Heuristics, as a term is less commonly known in social discourse, for it confined use in academia, healthcare, education, forensic fields and computer science, among other applications. Meanwhile, the popularly known Scientific Method is construed to be applicable to the extent of one’s profession. A deplorable limitation indeed.
The scientific method finds religion of use limited to personal spirituality. Everywhere else, religion under the scrutiny of science is unable to hold merit, owing to the former’s failure to provide evidence that substantiates its claims. Much in the same way, religions toss away and mock science, considering it as witchcraft tampering with nature. While science accepts the place for religion under theology. Religion makes no accommodation. This pits the two in a contest; religion on the side of dogmatism, while science on the side of pragmatism.
Here forth, religion will be used as a term to describe absolute beliefs. References are therefore not particularly towards ones popularly. So to say, if you believe in apples as red in colour. Well that’s your religion. If you believe in writing from the left or the right hand. Either case is your religion. If you believe in starting your day at 5 am, 7 am or in the middle of the day, any or all of those are your religious beliefs. You mind as well believe in preferring an iPhone over a Windows phone. Religion creates tradition; the larger its following, more risqué becomes glancing around the search for alternatives.
Pragmatism’s scientific method has other ideas to traditional subscription. Curiosity expands the horizon, dissolving focus in its wake. Exploring the examples above from this perspective will tell you that apples are not only red, but also green, yellow and with gradients of those colours. Writing from either hand or ambidexterity is acceptable. Changing habits of time allows creative exploration and adventure. Similarly, choosing a phone or phones in your capacity for optimal functional usage is economic wisdom.
The idea that you can question, investigate and find practical results by yourself is an advantage that must be wielded. Heuristics lead a person to a junction, presenting a choice of various paths, and the associated outcomes, or consequences with those path. Better than relying on luck or any reliance that does not present possible outcomes ahead.
Eventually, pragmatism builds confidence from experimentation, leading to what eventually becomes intuition. Verily becoming the formation of instincts.
To have a play at Josef Stalin’s popular phrase:
Pragmatism is dogmatism of its own
Without experiences and observations, experimentations and opinions, knowledge does not exist.
