Logical and sceptical thinking

Scepticism is a good thinking method, to defend oneself against mistakes.

Typical chain of reasoning could be, that we should base our thinking always on scientifically proven facts and if we then use logical thinking, we can either prove or disprove each hypothesis and therefore always will get a valid result.

But the term " scientifically proven facts" is not precisely defined and we can also not be sure, that logical thinking could not lead us to contradictions.

For instance many scientists are convinced, that animals have a much lower intelligence than humans.  But that is wrong, because we apply a human measure to no- humans.

And if we investigate, why this mistake is made, then we come back to the old testimony, where there is told by God to Adam, that he shall be the master of all animals. Apparently many scientists are strongly influenced by their Christian or monotheistic background and therefore make wrong conclusions.

When we apply the findings of information theory and cybernetics, then we could try to define a more general term of intelligence, which is applicable to all living beings and free from any prejudices and which can also get measured.

For instance the chain of reasoning could be as follows:

• A living being gets information from its environment and uses it, to adjust its response to the environment.
• If the response is made in a way, so that the living being increases its chances to survive, then we could judge this as an intelligent behaviour. ( many human beings, like smokers and alcoholics, are then not intelligent)
• A horse for instance will not increase its chance to survive in the wilderness, if it masters mathematics. Therefore to use mathematical tests to measure its intelligence would be nonsense.

The same applies to language:

•  Animals cannot speak like humans, because their anatomy is not suitable for it.
• But we don´t know, what other methods of exchanging information are used by animals. Dolphins use high frequency sounds and therefore they have a much larger bandwidth to exchange information. But up to now we are still too stupid, to understand their communication.

Based on some kind of a more general definition of intelligence it could be, that we find out in the future, that there exist animals, which are more intelligent than we.

• Would we be honest enough to accept that ? I am sure, that we would not do it.

There are plenty of examples, where men did not accept, that other men are intelligent and at least as much worth as they themselves:

• Look at, how the aboriginals were treated in Australia. The small children were taken by force from their parents and brought to white people, where they grew up in quite another environment. That was a kind of genocide. One could call it a soft genocide, because the children were not murdered, but the effect was the same:  to extinguish a tribe. ( in Canada similar things were made).
• Why  could such cruel things be done, which are against the most basic human values ? ( and that in democracies, which both are based on Christian values, like love your next )

Because the white people were convinced, that only their kind of living was right and that the aboriginals did not know, how to treat correctly their own children. They treated the aboriginals like criminals, who mistreat their children. ( totally neglecting the fact, that the aboriginals lived for at least 50 000 years in Australia and did not destroy their environment, like the stupid white people managed to do in some hundred years only)

Are the aboriginals less intelligent than white people ?

• This question is already wrong, because we would apply a term, which is not applicable to both. When we apply the more general term of intelligent behaviour, then the white people are much less intelligent, if they would have to live in the Australian desert, having only the tools of the aboriginals available.

What conclusions can we draw from these examples ?

• That we have to check, if we use correct definitions and terms, or if they inherently contain also a prejudgment. And we should not trust too much logical thinking, when we investigate more complex systems, like in sociology and politics.
• Even when we use the correct facts and logical thinking, we can come to wrong conclusions and therefore make the wrong decisions. The complexity of reality cannot be reduced so much, that logical reasoning alone can be applied, to get the correct results.

Our thinking is formed by the civilization, in which we grow up and by our natural language and therefore we must always be aware, that our judgements can be totally wrong, especially, when we apply them to other civilizations or other living beings.

For some years now we try to come into contact with extraterrestial civilizations.

• And we make a typical mistake: We assume, that these civilizations would send information, which we can understand, like mathematical relationships for instance.

What is, if for these civilizations some kind of music would be of highest value and that they have encoded it in a way, which we cannot decode, as long as we don´t assume, that music is sent to us ?

• As long as we even cannot decode the communication of dolphins, we cannot expect, to decode signals from extraterrestial civilizations:

Why not begin here on earth:

• Assume that wales and dolphins have some kind of higher intelligence, which might be different from ours, but which eventually permits them, to communicate with us, if we would try to understand, what they could consider to be important to send to us.

I assume, that they would try to inform us, that we should respect them and their environment, not poison the sea and not produce such a lot of noise with our ships and all the ultrasonic devices and bombs.