Sensemaking crisis

Apparently one of the biggest crises in today's world is the breakdown of sensemaking. People are unwilling and/or unable to agree about much of anything, and the resulting stresses are manifesting in a number of new ways. But is it really true that society's ability to discern truth is worse today than it was in the past? I'm not convinced.

Nature of reality, truth and experience

To decide what one can know about truth, it might be best to start from an understanding of the nature of reality. But ... I don't want to wander into philosophical discourse, as mind and logic cannot actually resolve the most fundamental questions. There are countless philosophical depictions of reality, but what they all have in common (acknowledged or not) is a basis in axiomatic logic. In simpler terms, this means every conclusion depends on one or more assumptions. It doesn't matter how simple or complex, elegant or convoluted, or valid or invalid the logic is. Assumptions are required to conclude anything. And logic dictates exactly which conclusions can be made once assumptions are specified. Thus, when viewed from the perspective of mind and logic: truth = assumptions.

It is widely assumed that an objective reality exists, and philosophy and science (or equivalent) is needed to understand and navigate it. A small minority assumes the opposite, that there is no objective reality. Without these most basic assumptions, can any valid argument about the true nature of reality even begin?

One "truth" doesn't require any assumptions. Something that is known without any assumptions, logic or conclusions: consciousness experiences. Without making assumptions, I can't even say that someone experiences something, because person(s) and thing(s) are assumed. But consciousness is prior to any thought, assumptions or conclusions, and what it does is experience.

Considering all of this, a few questions naturally arise:

• Is it possible for a society to function without making assumptions about what's true?
• If assumptions are made, how do they affect society's discernment of truth?

Agreement

A tacitly accepted social phenomenon is that truth is determined by agreement. The terminology commonly accepted fact(s) makes this clear. For a truth to be commonly accepted, there must be agreement (and vice versa). This is what logicians call a tautology. But what are the parameters of such agreement(s)? For the agreement to be robust, all the shared assumptions, logic and conclusions must be accepted. And because the logic and conclusions will follow if the axioms (assumptions) are accepted, agreement is wholly dependent on shared assumptions. Thus, from a social perspective, the same conclusion is reached: truth = assumptions. The only difference between the socially accepted truth and the truth discerned by the (apparently individual) logical mind is agreement about (the shared) assumptions.

Natural law and relativity

Natural law is the functioning of experience that requires no intervention by an individual or collective. The functioning of logic falls into this classification. Because of this, mistakes are often made in the application of logic. It is believed that the naturalness of logic imparts absolute truth to the conclusions drawn from a logical argument. But a critical factor is usually ignored: the application of logic is relative to an observer.

Although the functioning of logic doesn't require intervention, in its application there is intervention by an observer (the one(s) applying the logic). Thus, such application is affected by the characteristics and perspective of the observer. Even though the logical foundation of an argument might be independent and unassailable, factors such as hidden assumptions and beliefs, unresolved emotions, or other latent biases invariably enter the experience once anyone participates. It's like the old saying about the difference between theory and practice: it's less in theory than it is in practice.

Therefore, the problem of logic is not in its theoretical foundation, but in the application. Too often, human factors are ignored, even though they can't be avoided. Adoption of common assumptions is rarely achieved, hidden agendas, biases, and faulty application of logic enter the picture, and before long, chaos ensues.

Social complexity

Returning to the two questions posed earlier, although I think it's possible for a society to function without assumptions, in practice, it will never be thoroughly tested. It's a fun and informative thought experiment for contemplation, but not practical to implement in its purest form. Perhaps more useful to consider is the impact of assumptions on the discernment of truth. I have asserted that it essentially boils down to agreement and application. In essence, it's a problem of social complexity. And a crisis in sensemaking is the result of a sea change in the functioning of this complexity. The information age has catalyzed the emergence of several novel social phenomena, such as information volume and complexity (a.k.a. information overload), online echo chambers, new forms of propaganda, information wars, coercion and censorship, just to name a few. The speed at which these new phenomena have emerged has so far exceeded the capacity of society to adapt its assumptions and application of logic.

Crisis and beyond

One conclusion now seems inevitable: society must adapt, or else various forms of collapse will ensue. I don't claim to know or want to predict exactly when and how this adaption will take place; but I'm fairly certain that it will. Human history has demonstrated countless examples of adaptation in the face of overwhelming crisis. I will suggest one possible scenario: perhaps society will move in the direction of functioning with fewer and/or temporally/spatially limited assumptions (assuming a zero assumption world is impractical). Of course, this would depend on an emergent ability to adapt to the consequences of truths that are shorter lived and/or limited in (social) scope, or not even contemplated at all.

Personally, I think the ability to discern truth is improving, if anything. It's becoming more apparent by the day that intelligent beings can disagree violently about seemingly fundamental facts. Sooner or later, it will become apparent that common assumptions are needed if agreement is to be reached and social harmony is to be restored. And for this to happen, the assumptions will need significant scrutiny. In the past, when assumptions were inherited without question or objection, agreement was easily established and/or maintained. But a limited capacity to evaluate assumptions was needed and developed, as many assumptions were largely hidden from view (and thus ignored). Assumptions tended to follow the apocryphal version of the golden rule: the one with the gold makes the rules.

Now that the world appears to be adopting a more distributed model of social hierarchy and application of power, it only makes sense that assumptions and the guardians of truth should be similarly managed and distributed. But the transition requires a process of creative destruction, in which new structures of assumption and application emerge, and (many of the) old structures are abandoned.

Alternatively, a new central authority emerges and rapidly consolidates governance over the matters of truth (a la Orwell's 1984, or the current regime ruling China),

Let the fun begin!