Francis Bacon said that humans \"suppose the existence of more order and regular

Question

Francis Bacon said that humans "suppose the existence of more order and regularity in the world than it finds". This element of our psychology is both essential for science, and highly dangerous if not tempered and refined.

We are adept at telling stories about patterns, whether they exist or not

Patterns are the result of finding the same, or similar, explanations for several events in similar circumstances; they are used to make predictions. In science, the patterns are often described as hypotheses or even laws, and the predictions are how we test these hypotheses. To come up with patterns, we need to find an explanation that fits the evidence (data) across a number of different experiments; indeed, across almost all experiments of the same class. And that means we need to create a natural grouping of phenomena to analyse. It turns out that humans are very good at finding similarities and forming grouping, but not necessarily in the same way that nature seems to. Or, as Michael Shermer says "Humans are pattern-seeking story-telling animals, and we are quite adept at telling stories about patterns, whether they exist or not".

Consider Aristotle, one of the most successful pattern seekers we know (he is the father of western biology and logic, and step-father of physics). He thought that the correct similarity grouping for analysing patterns of falling objects was objects of the same weight. That is, he claimed that objects fall at a speed relative to their weight. Certainly a feather falls slower than a hammer (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. QED, right?

But 2000 years later, Galileo thought otherwise. He conducted a famous thought experiment showing that falling speed couldn't be proportional to weight, and decided that in ideal circumstances, all objects fall at the same rate. In fact, gravity (the downwards pull) accelerates all objects (including feathers, bricks, air, and even light) equally, but air resistance (the other significant force on most falling objects in Earth's atmosphere) is affected by the object's shape and size, and the relative size of these two forces is thus affected by the object's (weight ÷ size), or density. So, a better similarity for grouping for determining the correct pattern about objects falling on Earth is objects of the same shape and density. After Galileo discovered this new pattern, Newton broadened the pattern to include planets falling around the sun, and then Einstein tweaked the pattern for very rapidly moving objects.

Having the right similarity grouping is like asking the right question, or collecting the right type of data. We can often find a pattern to explain particular data. But if the data isn't representative of a natural grouping, we will create an equally unnatural pattern. The skill to carve nature at the joints, so that it can be dissected cleanly and accurately, is something we've valued since at least Plato discussed it in the Phaedrus. But we still have trouble teaching or even describing it.

The other important skill in pattern seeking is coming up with explanations for each event. Similar explanations across similar events form the patterns. But ad hoc (overly specific) or overly general explanations, or explanations that work at the wrong level of abstraction, or which focus on the wrong elements, are doomed to failure, and we can't tell whether our explanation is any good until we find a pattern that works across the entire data set we have selected.

An example explanation: Consider what an object must have to be ignitable. Usually it must be dry. But some dry objects burn better than others - they must have more of some burny substance – let’s call it phlogiston. When an object is burnt, it is lighter - the phlogiston is consumed, and the object can no longer burn. Air can only absorb a certain amount of phlogiston; a fire will burn itself out if there is not fresh air to absorb the phlogiston. This explanation of combustion was successful well for decades.

A generation later we realised that metals, when burned, become heavier. And the set of burned objects included metals as well as wood and similar organics. Some people split the set, and claimed that metals burned through different principles than organics. But others decided that there were enough relevant similarities that burning metal and wood should have the same explanation, and eventually we replaced the phlogiston theory of combustion with our current oxygen theory of combustion.

So now we know that pattern seeking is important, and that it can be hard to find the right groupings and appropriate explanation. But why might it be dangerous when used carelessly? Here's two reasons:

First, a strong attraction to complete patterns and dislike of deviance or flaws in patterns is strongly linked (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. with prejudice against minority groups, particularly those easily labelled 'deviant' rather than ''special'. Both types of variation from the norm are described using similar loaded terms e.g. 'weird', 'flawed', 'mistake', 'deviant', and 'fixable'. Unsurprisingly, this is also highly correlated wtih a conservative mindset (here, 'conservative' is a psychological, not political, term indicating a preference for constancy, similarity, and predictability; there is some correlation betwen psychological and political conservativism). We'll investigate some of the study's findings in our "Analysing a Model" exercise at the end of this module.

Second, psychologists have shown that all humans have some degree of Apophenia:

Apophenia - the tendency to perceive meaningful patterns within random data.
Pareidolia - the perception of images or sounds in random stimuli. A sensory sub-type of Apophenia.

We tend to see patterns in random data as well as where there really are patterns. And the patterns we tend to see are based on our existing beliefs and desires. For instance, seeing a portrait of the standard western representation of Jesus in toast is quite common, common enough that there are a raft of psychology papers on this phenomenon. (e.g. Seeing Jesus in Toast (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., or for a less technical take, Seeing Jesus in Toast is Normal (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.). This is not to say that one or two images of Jesus on toast may be genuine, but the vast majority are certainly examples of paredolia. A similar experience occurs when we look at clouds and see a rabbit, or sheep, or other shape. We know the cloud isn't really the same shape as an animal, but it is easy to see some likeness.

So, we have a psychological bias towards seeing patterns; this helps us to detect them more rapidly when they are there, but also means that we get many "false positives"; that is, we also detect patterns that don't exist. And we also judge people and events that fail to conform to our chosen patterns. To be philosophical for a moment, it is still an open question whether any of the regularities that we see and agree on about the outside world are actually part of objective reality, or whether they are simply imposed on our perceptions by our pattern-seeking minds. After all, how could we tell, in any particular instance? Perhaps we should think of Science as the study of the patterns we perceive, not the underlying truths of the universe.

Set patterns, incapable of adaptability, of pliability, only offer a better cage. Truth is outside of all patterns. – Bruce Lee, Tao of Jeet Kune Do.

Tell us your view on how our thinking is shaped by patterns, both real and imagined.

Explanation / Answer

During human evolution, pattern processing capabilities became increasingly refined as the result of expansion of the cerebral cortex, particularly the prefrontal cortex and regions involved in processing of images. Specific patterns, real or imagined, are reinforced by emotional experiences, indoctrination and even psychedelic drugs. During human evolution, pattern processing capabilities became increasingly refined as the result of expansion of the cerebral cortex, particularly the prefrontal cortex and regions involved in processing of images. Specific patterns, real or imagined, are reinforced by emotional experiences, indoctrination and even psychedelic drugs.

The large numbers of encoded images and sound patterns can then be recalled and mentally influenced in ways that enable comparisons of different patterns and, at least in the human brain, the generation of new patterns that convey objects and processes that could possibly exist, or are impossible or far-fetched.

The types of pattern processing that appear to occur vigorously, if not uniquely in the human brain and are therefore considered as pattern processing include:

(1) Creativity and invention, which have resulted in the development of tools, processes and protocols for solving problems and saving time, and the arts

(2) Spoken and written languages that faciliate rapid communication of highly specific information about all aspects of the physical universe and human experiences;

(3) Reasoning and rapid decision-making;

(4) Imagination and mental time travel which enables the creation and rehearsal of potential future scenarios;

(5) Magical thinking or we can even say fantasy, cognitive process that involves beliefs in entities and processes that defy accepted laws of causality including telepathy, spirits, and gods.

The results of functional brain imaging studies and of patients with brain injury suggest that multiple brain regions and neuronal networks are involved in each of the different types of patten based thinking. In humans, the cerebral cortex involved in processing visual inputs is significantly larger than lower anthropoids, likely due an evolutionary transition from being nocturnal, arboreal and relatively solitary, to being diurnal, ground-based and social.

The human brain is remarkably similar to the brains of non-human primates and lower mammals at the molecular and cellular levels, suggesting that the human brain deploys evolutionarily generic signaling mechanisms to store and retrieve large amounts of information and, most remarkably, to integrate information in ways that result in the generation of new emergent properties such as complex languages, imagination, and invention.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse F
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.