We are all familiar with the question, or call it a puzzle, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it still make a sound?” There are two answers, both correct. Yes, if “sound” means the vibrations in the air that the falling tree creates and that would be perceived as sound if there were someone present. No, if “sound” means the sensory perception and processing thereof in the brain of a person who is present when the tree comes down. Some try to confuse this clear distinction by noting that if a recording device is present instead of a person and the recording is played later, the listener hears the “sound” made by the tree. Of course, this is nonsense. The pressure vibrations in the air are converted to electrical signals by the device which then later, through some sort of solenoid, drives a speaker’s diaphragm that creates similar vibrations in the air around the device that may be perceived as sound, assuming someone is present to hear the device’s falling-tree repertoire.
If one wants to continue the semantic silliness, we could ask, “If a recording device’s playback is activated and no one is there, does it still make a sound?” The not-so-silly observation to draw is that objective reality and a human being’s processing of sensory perceptions, or subjective reality, are different animals. The labels we apply to phenomena, like “sound” instead of “atmospheric compressions and rarefactions,” help with interpersonal communication but gloss over and confuse these two realities.
We can go deeper down this rabbit hole [0]
I’ll leave it to our readers to resolve further pointless mind-benders. For example, what if a human is present but is suffering from a total loss of the auditory sense, i.e., deaf? What if hearing companions have accompanied their deaf friend? If no humans are present, but animals of the forest with more sensitive than human hearing are there when the timber comes crashing down, does the definition of ‘sound’ need extension? Not quite finally, we can imagine a situation where the forest is in a canyon whose walls echo the sharp cracking but not the softer leafy evidence of the tree’s demise. Is hearing the echo the same as being there?
No help from the experts
A minority of philosophers contend that only subjective reality exists.[1] The arguments for and against the existence of an objective reality are complex, arcane, and headache-producing in the extreme. We needn’t go there. However, I find it interesting that the subjective has even crept into science and math. In Bayesian statistics, probability is interpreted as reasonable expectation based on quantification of a personal belief.[2] In one version of quantum mechanics, a physical system is not in any one of its available states until we measure it to be there.[3] There are surely many more twists and turns to further confuse our understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of the objective versus subjective issue, but we can be content with distinguishing between reasonably provable facts and often shared personal observations and opinions. This works for me whether nothing or everything really exists outside of my own perceptions.
A gastronomical illustration
On the US-based cable TV channel Food Network, the programming comprises food preparation either by chefs who compete or by restaurateurs in their establishments’ kitchens. Every ingredient in the culinary exercise is precisely known and every aspect of the tools and procedures employed is there to be seen. Once the end products are plated, the host in the kitchen or the judges for the contest view and taste the results. That is where objectivity ends. Comments on the attractiveness of the presentation and the aroma and flavors of the repast are entirely subjective. You can guess the answer to the pointless question, “If no host or judge or live audience is there, does the plate have a discernable aroma and taste?” As was the case for the falling tree, we need the human element for the conventional meaning of those sensory terms to make sense. But in this case, we have a next step. The humans individually evaluate their sensory evidence and can come to different conclusions. It’s as if we asked several lumberjacks, without the benefit of a decibel meter, how loud they thought the sound of the falling tree was.
Anecdotes – the notch
On one hand, an anecdote is a short narrative communicating concrete details. The concrete aspect seems quite objective. On the other hand, it is a personal description of an observation or experience. The personal aspect seems quite subjective. It is both. They are not mutually exclusive in this case because the sample size is small. It is a problem when the narrator of the anecdote implies that the lessons of their story apply broadly to the soil of the entire planet or to a huge swath of the populous. Finding a gold nugget when panning in a northern California stream makes a good story, but for streams everywhere else, even near similar geological formations, the pans are likely disappointing. Discovering that all respondents in a small focus group comprising a diverse group of citizens expressed views that aligned with one's own makes a good story but can't be generalized to the entire citizenry. Whether the facts of the anecdote are proven or their description is colored by the leanings of the narrator, that comfortable notch between the objective and subjective only serves to raise a question as to whether the story is more broadly applicable.
I live in a weather-lucky home. I don’t mean it has survived being battered by major storms or drenched by massive downpours. I mean that when forecasts warn of inclemency approaching from the west, they are correct for those living north and/or south of us, but most often not for us. Perhaps we live in a one-house-wide unique meteorological corridor or it’s due to a persistence of good luck. In any case, my anecdotes about those experiences or lack thereof are certainly not broadly applicable. Any north or south neighbor will attest to that.
Utility
Why have we gone so far into the weeds where it is easy to lose sight of central questions of objective fact and subjective impression? Our meandering through this thicket of aggregated factoids versus how they are perceived has been an exercise, one that helps to sort through all of the “stories” that flood our information streams daily. Which are true nuggets worth researching further to test their generalization potential? Which are Fool's Gold with plenty of glittering pyrite but little value? In the realm of politics and public policy, a candidate for office may relate a personal interaction she had with one individual whose problems were or would be helped by her policies. The candidate is implying, without evidence, that her story is relevant to a wider slice of the electorate. We can search for the data that will tell us if the same is indeed true for many more people than the candidate's single exemplar. My general admonition, then, is to resist generalization until it is fully justified.
A sarcastic low note
If the observer in the forest happens to be standing directly under the falling tree, the sound may not be heard despite his presence. It depends on whether auditory recognition precedes the loss of consciousness, after which time vibrations of the eardrum raise the same epistemological question which began today’s post. The analogy, of course, is the equivalence of unconsciousness that results from being beaten over the head by the repeated rhetorical blows of the generalizers. Crime is up. It is not. The economy is in decline. It is not. Most immigrants are drug smugglers. They are not. Climate change is a hoax. It is not. Yes, isolated instances, small percentages, and single experiences provide real factual verification of the occurrence of such things and the possibility that they may, emphasis on may, be more widespread. But until the surveys are done, the statistics are in, and the caveats are considered, those of us who remain conscious ought not be fooled by the purveyors either of doom or panaceas.
Let’s purvey some doom
We should ask ourselves if some objective facts, taken together, can result in a subjective expectation. I would say yes. This is no different than those food judges expecting a good taste before the actual tasting based on their own training in the art and observing the current preparation performances. In several of our earlier posts, this is precisely what we have done, not concerning gastronomy but rather food for thought. Events experienced live or documented through unedited recordings, evidence distilled from a mixture of fact and opinions of both validated experts and their corresponding naysayers, and a wealth of historical precedent from which to draw analogies are the objective input that leads subjectively to a prediction that can only await its affirmation. An early accidental prophesy of today’s troubles arose in Felicia Lamport’s Cultural Slag [4] in which illustrator Edward Gorey anticipated the “Trump of Doom.”
For US$13.50, a mere pittance considering the gravity of its prescience, one can purchase the pictured commemorative mug.[5] Similarly, just as some fanciful elements of early science fiction have been realized in science fact today, elements of Orwell’s 1984 [6] now loom as a potential dystopic reality. Like lambs to the slaughter or lemmings to the cliff, choose your cliché, an apparently inexorable decline in respect for objective fact and a rise in unthinking magical reliance on vague subjective promises of bread and circuses is upon us. Too dark? Perhaps. But the voices of reason are yet quite quiet, alarms sound only softly from obscure corners where the ears are not of those they need to reach.
Subjectively subjective
Despite all the handwringing, Chicken Littles claiming "The sky is falling!", and boys crying wolf a third time over, there is no objectively identifiable wolf at the door and the sky is just fine. The evidence that’s out there is persuasive, but we remain in subjective mode. I would feel much better if a person of ubiquitously unquestioned stature were to pose to any who would put our comfortable and predictable polity at risk the widely publicized question, “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”[7] Even better would be this paraphrased statement,“… the American people have had a look at you now;…you're not fooling anyone…”[8] If that subjective generalization could be made with confidence today, if the run on Kool-Aid were to meet an unceremonious end [9], I would sleep better and Ruminations could focus more on such uplifting deserving topics as underdogs beating number one seeds, the rebound of threatened species, the prices of bread and petrol returning to manageable levels, the entirely objective observation that blue is for boys and pink is for girls, and the Emperor has finally realized that he is wearing no clothes.[10]
________________________________
[0] Lewis Carroll, Title of chapter one in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865) [See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_the_rabbit_hole ]
[1] https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Does_objective_reality_exist%3F
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)
[4] Cultural Slag by Felicia Lamport (Houghton and Mifflin, New York, 1966)
[5] https://goreystore.com/products/edward-gorey-trump-of-doom-mug
(Cycloid Fathom’s Ruminations has no financial interest in that mug.)
[6] Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell (Secker & Warburg, UK, 1949).
[7] Joseph Welch to Senator Joseph McCarthy, Army–McCarthy hearings, United States Senate's Subcommittee on Investigations, June 9, 1054.
[8] Senator Stuart Symington to Senator Joseph McCarthy, Army–McCarthy hearings, op cit.
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes
________________________________________
Nota Bene: Others may ruminate differently. But be warned: In my case, seeing or hearing something quite trivial -- a saying, a store clerk’s mannerisms, or bad grammar on a food product’s label – triggers a stream-of-consciousness extrapolation toward grander notions and generalizations. That is what often happens in these posts. ADDENDUM: Those subscribers who have been here for a while will have noticed that at times ruminations have veered into diatribes. I make no apology. I just want my readers to know that it’s quite intentional. When events come close to making the ‘blood boil,’ that discontent bubbles up here.
Disclaimer: Any and all opinions expressed here are my own at the time of writing with no expectation that they will hold beyond my next review of this article. Opinions are like a river, winding hither and yon, encountering obstacles and rapids, and suffering turbulent mixing of silts from its depths and detritus from its banks. But just as a river has its clear headwaters and a fertile delta, so do opinions, notwithstanding any intervening missteps and uncertainties.
____________________________________________
Reminder: You can visit the Cycloid Fathom Technical Publishing website at cycloid-fathom.com and the gallery at cycloid-fathom.com/gallery.
Forthcoming posts (unless life intervenes)
Car Park
…Symptoms of going nowhere fast
Sched 4/15/2024
The color of color
…What you see is what you see
Sched 4/22/2024
Repetitive Objects Found
…curiosity runs amok
Sched 4/29/2024
Conflict Zones
…Sticks and stones…
Sched 5/6/2024
Quantify me
…metiri, aestimare, iudicare aliquid* (…measure, estimate, judge something)
Sched 5/13/2024
The Last Resort
…Still searching for the magic nostrum
Sched 5/20/2024
Let me count the ways*
……Once, it was only love
Sched 5/27/2024