77
Lending credence to my position is Francis Bacon’s scientific method, according to which we
can know only that which we observe, and thus all truth must be based on empirical
observation. This profoundly important principle serves to expose and strip away all subjective
interpretation of observation, thereby revealing objective scientific truths. For example, up until
Bacon’s time the Earth was "observed" to lie at the center of the Universe, in accordance with
the prevailing religious notion that man (humankind) was the center of God’s creation.
Applying Bacon’s scientific method Galileo exposed the biased nature of this claim. Similarly,
before Einstein time and space were assumed to be linear, in accordance with our
"observation." Einstein’s mathematical formulas suggested otherwise, and his theories have
been proven empirically to be true. Thus it was our subjective interpretation of time and space
that led to our misguided notions about them. Einstein, like history’s other most influential
scientists, simply refused to accept conventional interpretations of what we all observe.
In sum, the speaker confuses observation with interpretation and recollection. It is how we
make sense of what we observe, not observation itself, that is colored by our perspective,
expectations, and desires. The gifted individuals who can set aside their subjectivity and delve
deeper into empirical evidence, employing Bacon’s scientific method, are the ones who reveal
that observation not only can be objective but must be objective if we are to embrace the more
fundamental notion that knowledge and truth exist.
Issue 70
"The human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are only tools of
human minds."
This statement actually consists of a series of three related claims: (1) machines are tools of
human minds; (2) human minds will always be superior to machines; and (3) it is because
machines are human tools that human minds will always be superior to machines. While I
concede the fn:st claim, whether I agree with the other two claims depends partly on how one
defines "superiority," and partly on how willing one is to humble oneself to the unknown future
scenarios.
The statement is clearly accurate insofar as machines are tools of human minds. After all,
would any machine even exist unless a human being invented it? Of course not.Moreover, I
would be hard-pressed to think of any machine that cannot be described as a tool. Even
machines designed to entertain or amuse us--for example, toy robots, cars and video games,
and novelty items--are in fact tools, which their inventors and promoters use for engaging in
commerce and the business of entertainment and amusement. And, the claim that a machine
can be an end in itself, without purpose or utilitarian function for humans whatsoever, is
dubious at best, since I cannot conjure up even a single example of any such machine. Thus
when we develop any sort of machine we always have some sort of end in mind a purpose for
that machine.
As for the statement’s second claim, in certain respects machines are superior. We have
devised machines that perform number-crunching and other rote cerebral tasks with greater
accuracy and speed than human minds ever could. In fact, it is because we can devise
machines that are superior in these respects that we devise them--as our tools--to begin with.
However, if one defines superiority not in terms of competence in per-forming rote tasks but
78
rather in other ways, human minds are superior. Machines have no capacity for independent
thought, for making judgments based on normative considerations, or for developing
emotional responses to intellectual problems.
Up until now, the notion of human-made machines that develop the ability to think on their
own, and to develop so-called "emotional intelligence," has been pure fiction. Besides, even in
fiction we humans ultimately prevail over such machines--as in the cases of Frankenstein’s
monster and Hal, the computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Yet it seems presumptuous to
assert with confidence that humans will always maintain their superior status over their
machines. Recent advances in biotechnology, particularly in the area of human genome
research, suggest that within the 21st Century we’ll witness machines that can learn to think on
their own, to repair and nurture themselves, to experience visceral sensations, and so forth. In
other words, machines will soon exhibit the traits to which we humans attribute our own
superiority.
In sum, because we devise machines in order that they may serve us, it is fair to
characterize machines as "tools of human minds." And insofar as humans have the unique
capacity for independent thought, subjective judgment, and emotional response, it also seems
fair to claim superiority over our machines. Besides, should we ever become so clever a
species as to devise machines that can truly think for themselves and look out for their own
well-being, then query whether these machines of the future would be "machines’’ anymore.
Issue 71
"The most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed
to particular principles and objectives. Any leader who is quickly and easily influenced by shifts
in popular opinion will accomplish little."Whether effective leadership requires that a leader consistently follow his or her principles and
objectives is a complex issue--one that is tied up in the problem of defining effective leadership
in the first place. In addressing the issue it is helpful to consider, in turn, three distinct forms of
leadership: business, political, and social-spiritual.
In the business realm, effective leadership is generally defined, at least in our corporate
culture, as that which achieves the goal of profit maximization for a firm’s shareholders or other
owners. Many disagree, however, that profit is the appropriate measure of a business leader’s
effectiveness. Some detractors claim, for example, that a truly effective business leader must
also fulfill additional duties--for example, to do no intentional harm to their customers or to the
society in which they operate. Other detractors go further--to impose on business leaders an
affirmative obligation to yield to popular will, by protecting consumers, preserving the natural
environment, promoting education, and otherwise taking steps to help alleviate society’s
problems.
Whether our most effective business leaders are the ones who remain consistently
committed to maximizing profits or the ones who appease the general populace by
contributing to popular social causes depends, of course, on one’s own definition of business
success. In my observation, as business leaders become subject to closer scrutiny by the
media and by social activists, business leaders will maximize profits in the long term only by
taking reasonable steps to minimize the social and environmental harm their businesses
79
cause. Thus the two definitions merge, and the statement at issue is ultimately correct.
In the political realm the issue is no less complex. Definitions of effective political leadership
are tied up in the means a leader uses to wield his or her power and to obtain that power in the
first place. Consider history’s most infamous tyrants and despots--such as Genghis Khaan,
Stalin, Mao, and Hider. No historian would disagree that these individuals were remarkably
effective leaders, and that each one remained consistently committed to his tyrannical
objectives and Machiavellian principles. Ironically, it was stubborn commitment to objectives
that ultimately defeated all except Khan. Thus in the short term stubborn adherence to one’s
objectives might serve a political leader’s interest in preserving his or her power; yet in the long
term such behavior invariably results in that leader’s downfall if the principles are not in
accord with those of the leader’s would-be followers.
Finally, consider social-spiritual leadership. Few would disagree that through their ability to
inspire others and lift the human spirit Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King were
eminently effective in leading others to effect social change through civil disobedience. It
seems to me that this brand of leadership, in order to be effective, inherently requires that the
leader remain steadfastly committed to principle. Why? It is commitment to principle that is the
basis for this brand of leadership in the first place. For example, had Gandhi advocated civil
disobedience yet been persuaded by dose advisors that an occasional violent protest might be
effective in gaining India’s independence from Britain, no doubt the result would have been
immediate forfeiture of that leadership. In short, social-spiritual leaders must not be hypocrites;
otherwise, they will lose all credibility and effectiveness.