As I’ve never really fully articulated this concept before, this is very likely going to be a multi-part posting, so I’ll give you the synopsis first and go into more explicit detail after the page break. This concept ties in with an entire “Mature Mindset” philosophy I’m playing with… the Theory of Tools bit helps with the epistemological underpinnings. Part 1 really will be an introduction to a complete system of thought that I will hopefully be fleshing out soon.
The Theory of Tools is both a procedural and an ethical theory; it involves holding a particular moral mindset towards both one’s own ideas and the ideas of others, that mindset being one of moral neutrality towards the idea itself, reserving ethical judgments for the uses to which that idea is placed. An idea is nothing more than a tool, neither evil nor good in and of itself in exactly the same way in which a hatchet (the greatest tool evar) is neither good nor evil. Whether the tool in question is a hatchet, a bible, fire or Democracy or a thermonuclear MIRV, the moral and ethical connotations surrounding that tool can only be responsibly applied to the use to which that tool is placed.
A very serious problem I perceive within this society (in particular… it’s really humanity’s problem, but our society seems to display it with greater enthusiasm) is the tendency of people to commit both the slippery slope fallacy – claiming that an idea’s use will lead inevitably to disaster via a long chain of unlikely steps – and the entire (original Broadway) cast of red herring fallacies, my favorite of which is the ad hominem (against the person) fallacy. Most poignant to our discussion (ok, monologue) today is the appeal to consequences – the endorsement or rejection of an idea based solely upon a possible consequence of the idea’s adoption. Most frequently, this fallacy can be seen during pundit squabbling on whichever cable news network you care to name; invariably, should one speaker on an issue resort to this fallacy, the speaker on the other side of the issue must commit the very same fallacy in the opposite direction in an attempt to balance out the one-sidedness exhibited by the first speaker. Cleverly, this tactic by the first speaker enables later ad hominem attacks upon their opponent, maintaining the status quo of “that side is obviously prejudiced, therefore I must be the fair and balanced party (and therefore my ideas are more valid)”. That this attack can also be (and usually is) used by the opponent is simply more evidence that “my opponent is a partisan zealot”. The “winner” in these situations is generally the side occupied by the host, as the host generally has the last word before going to commercial… but since a person likely shares the political slant of a network if they’re watching that network, they’ve probably determined for themselves who the “winner” is even before the discussion begins. That, however, will be a problem for another day. Moving on.
Similar to the appeal to consequences is the cherry picker fallacy – the act of selectively informing the listener of all the positive or negative effects of an idea in order to build or erode (respectively) support for that idea. Also known as “counting the hits and forgetting the misses”, or vice versa for negative endorsements, this approach to reasoned debate further undermines any attempt at logical evaluation by, again, forcing partisanship upon both parties. I see this type of fallacy used most frequently (again, qualified only by my being forced to watch multiple cable news channels at once at my workplace) on the news by “guest experts”, particularly on MSNBC and Fox News. These people are called in to present a single factoid either in support of or opposition to a particular issue, but the vast majority of these experts do so by presenting only one side of their experience. At the end of their mini-presentation, these experts are also asked for their expert opinion as to the moral value of the idea in question… and the moral debate is where the real fun begins. In their defense, this is probably required of them – paycheck contingency can buy a lot of intellectual loyalty. Regardless of motive, the tendency for news organizations to present ideas in a particular light is an indictment of their Fourth Estate status; responsible reporting (and responsible thinking) is determined by the presentation of facts for facts’ sake; moral debate can be a good way to evaluate the possible applications and consequences of an idea, but for the reasoning to be consistent – and this is the really crucial bit – the moral aspect must be separated from the idea itself. To do otherwise poisons the idea with applications that may never be used; but of course, poisoning the idea one way or the other is what is intended by moral presentation of this sort.
Take “fire”, for instance. The idea of fire is completely distinct from the uses of fire, particularly the potential uses of fire. A full and reasoned presentation of the concept of fire (presented to Caveman Congress, if cavemen had appropriations committees back then) should be in two parts: the conceptual picture (what fire actually is and how we can make/control it) and the applications picture (both intended and plausible uses of fire). The two must necessarily be kept separate to avoid poisoning the idea with potential uses; fire in particular has a wide array of uses, both positive and negative. Imagine with me a moment: Caveman Fox News is doing a piece on this new invention, called “fire” by Fox because “chemical combustion reaction” is just way more highbrow than the image they’re trying to present to their audience. The segment is about a half-hour long: three minutes explaining what fire is, ten minutes of professional blogger cavemen coming up with disastrous possible uses for fire (my hair is flammable!), five minutes shouting at a weak-willed Democratic caveman scientist trying to explain how the absorbable calorific value of meat increases when cooked with fire (Hur! Hur! You use, funny word!) (said Sean Hannity Caveman) and a further twenty minutes of more punditry addressing how that Democrat guy hates Caveman America (moderated by Bill O’Reilly). Oh yeah, and two minutes of commercials (You buy Krog’s Square Wheel! 33% more sides than old, stinky Krood’s Triangle Wheel!).
So from a philosophical perspective: integrity of thought demands that a fair divide be placed in one’s thinking between a tool and that tool’s applications. This philosophy allows a person, group or society to develop new tools without the development process (physical or intellectual) being hamstrung by the fear of that tool being used in an undesirable manner. Furthermore: the Theory of Tools dispenses with the concept of not developing a tool due to possible applications; just because fire could one day be used to burn down a puppy orphanage does not mean we shouldn’t explore fire’s other uses. The idea of attaching a moral quality to a tool – calling something “heresy” or “unclean” or “against Nature” – is equally spurious, though moral judgments of the use to which a tool is placed may still hold valid. The Theory of Tools is one of the foundations of the Mature Mindset, which I’ll outline in the next post I get around to writing. As a quick teaser: the Mature Mindset is one of the few necessary preconditions of a successful modern society; the fact that our society in particular exhibits pride in shunning maturity is just slightly worrying to me.
Omnium Bonum Est