Further
Elaboration on the Logic of the Central/Basic Aspect
Having
widely circulated both an earlier edition of the paper “Education and Fundamentalism”
and the older paper “Integrative Planning” locally and to a lesser extent abroad,
it is my surmise that some people find it difficult to comprehend the basic aspect of
the papers’ thesis despite being easily convertible to a simple if-then type of logical statement such
as: if a + b = z and if c + d = z, then a + b = c + d. Accordingly,
the logic of that central aspect can be stated as: if specialized education provides a high level of knowledge within
limited narrow bands (like the limited range of visible light within the full electromagnetic
spectrum) and if public policy
encompasses a wide range of fields which are entwined and complex, then (it follows that) those with
specialized educations (without at least a basic knowledge of all relevant main
fields involved as well as their overlapping areas) will not be able to formulate sound public policy – although they may think the policy they formulate is
sound.
A simple
Venn diagram could clarify this apparently difficult problem. Imagine the area of a sheet of paper representing
the full range of fields constituent of public policy and the areas of a number
of circles on the page representing the respective specialized fields. Almost all circles will overlap some others to
varying degrees. From this we can see
that one’s field of specialization, represented by the area of only one circle, cannot be stretched to the full
range of fields, represented by area of the page. Also (while contrary to a Venn diagram’s simple
logic) it will not be possible for
those in any two fields to understand their overlapping new field unless they have
adequate knowledge of it. For example, both
sociologists and psychologists must study the overlapping new field of social
psychology, which has characteristics very different from those of either
sociology or psychology. And medical
students may initially know biology, chemistry, and physics, but not the overlapping
fields of biochemistry, biophysics, and physical chemistry, characteristics of
each differing from those of the original disciplines and from those of each
other. Likewise, knowledge of hydrogen
and oxygen would not help one to know about water, which has properties very different from those of both oxygen and hydrogen. Incidentally, both sociologists and
psychologists do study their shared field, but those in many other academic fields
do not and yet implicitly take it for granted that they are knowledgeable of overlapping
fields; worse, they are often unmindful that knowing their own fields would not
enable them to know others. And given
that such behaviour arises from distorted perceptions rather than from reality,
they can be classified on a par with what social psychologists call “self-serving
bias” – given the mental mechanisms involved in both cases are likely to be
about the same. (See footnote 5 of “Education & Fundamentalism” for a
reminder of the devastation such mindsets can induce.)
To further
illustrate, an example cited in a letter I wrote to members of the Maldives parliament
in April 2005 to highlight both the nature of the problem and how it would most
likely be the single biggest factor underlying the inappropriate policies by our
government (and for that matter by the governments of other less as well as the
more advances nations) is as follows:
A physician and a structural
engineer (both highly qualified/experienced in their specialized fields) went
to an intensive care unit of a hospital. The physician took one look at gauge(s)
connected to a patient (which provided an adequate picture of the physiological
state of his/her body) and instantly grasped the essence of the condition of
the patient, whereas the engineer couldn’t make head or tail of it. Then they went to a large building under
construction with the reinforcement in place and ready for concreting, and the
reverse happened. The engineer took one
look at the scene and immediately understood the essence of the reinforcement
layout, whereas the physician couldn’t make head or tail of it.
Similar outcomes
are likely to result for those with backgrounds in social sciences, as
economics and sociology, or with unrelated backgrounds, as psychology and
geography. The conclusion to be drawn
(relevant to our problem) is that people with specialized knowledge do not have
a common language using which they
can converse meaningfully about societal problems at any high level of
proficiency. (We can also say that we
are able to understand issues in specialized fields at any high level of
proficiency based on the specialized knowledge acquired at institutions of
higher education.)
Given the lack of a common language for meaningful
dialogue (due to
the lack of knowledge in the overlapping specialized fields) imagine what the
outcome will be if a group of people proficient in their specialized fields
were gathered at a round table (the process routinely used in institutions of
all modern societies) entrusted with finding solutions to societal problems, which
are, by their very nature, intertwined and complex, with no clear demarcation among
their various entwined fields!! (For a
better grasp of the nature and ramifications of our problem and its devastating
impact on societies, please reflect on the
quote by Professor Will Durant.)
