Dear all,
This is my first post utilising the full capabilities of my new website, so if something doesn’t go right, please let me know. My site is up and running now, repleat with pictures and other goodness.
I’d like to use this journal entry for two purposes. On the one hand, it is a review of where I have come to date in my intellectual development. On the other, more personal purpose, is that this entry serves as a justification of sorts to myself for why it is that I am at the Martin Institute for Science and Civilization, the Business School, and in academia in general. I hope, as many of you have commented in the past, that I am not alone in my interests. Perhaps I am able to put into words some things that you have been pondering over, and perhaps you can help me better put into words concepts that I can only touch on because I am stuck in my thought process. If your comments are personal, I encourage you to email me (samuel.evans@ponderingmind.org). If your comments are more general, then please post them in the comment section at the end of this entry (on my website).
A few weeks ago, I was deep in the process of sorting out a DPhil topic. I had a few ideas about what I wanted to do, mainly connecting my work understanding the interplay of different value-based dialogues (see my dissertation ) with my interest in strategic/security studies (see www.oussg.org.uk). My last attempt was to look at the way security concerns were accounted for in designing large water projects by taking part in a design process for dam or dike development in the South (possibly Southeast Asia). I thought there were holes in it certainly, but that it was a good start. When I took it to my supervisor, however, he commented that I had shown signs of the ugly sister syndrome. Troublesome indeed 
This is Steve’s way of saying that I’m trying to take a shoe (cultural theory, in this case) and jam it onto the first foot I see (the ugly sister, i.e. security). Try as I may, it just ain’t gonna fit. Fair enough. Too often, when we have a hammer, everything we see is a nail. Steve’s advice to me was to have a think about what it is about these diverse topics that interests me. Am I interested in security per se, or in some aspect of security? Thus began the age of Wim, ‘What interests me?’
It’s been a fruitful time since then. I have returned to my old writings, including some I had done while still at Olaf, to figure out why I studied what I did, and if I’m not studying it any more, why I left. Many of you have asked what the common thread running through all of my diverse interests is. I’ve often asked myself the same thing! When Steve asks it, however, I can’t give such an easy reply. So here it is, in reply to all your queries.
When I came to St. Olaf, I had it in my mind to be a physics major. I really enjoyed physics in high school, and it had that touch of fundamental usefulness that I latched onto when it came time for me to decide what to do with my life. When I got to Olaf, however, I discovered philosophy (which was a word I was barely familiar with before then) and had a huge crush on the subject. My reasoning behind taking on the philosophy major in addition to my physics major was that the physics would get me a job and the philosophy would keep me sane I enjoyed both degrees, but as part of doing a double major, I had to take a class that connected both topics. The logical choice was the philosophy of science, and here began my uneasiness. I enjoyed the intellectual forays we had in the class, but I began to realise that wasn’t enough for me. What seemed to interest me about science was not so much the ontological nature of quantum particles as it was the way science was used by non-scientists. I had the opportunity then to do an independent research project for my senior thesis, and focused on laying out the requirements I thought were necessary to hold the position of the US President’s Science Advisor. A very interesting task that, while getting me an A, blew my chances of getting distinction on my philosophy degree because it wasn’t ‘philosophical’ enough. I knew that would probably be the case when I embarked on the project, but felt that it was really something I wanted to do. Not getting distinction, and the fact that my advisers for my dissertation came from the departments of Philosophy, Physics, Anthropology, and International Relations, was clue for me that my interests did not lie within the traditional bounds of disciplinary research.
I had the opportunity to come to Oxford for a year as a visiting student, and grabbed the chance. Knowing what lay in store for me in physics and philosophy, I decided to branch out to other disciplines, and see what they had for me. What interested me at this point was the interaction of science and the state. The first term, I found myself studying the role of scientific advise in the Elizabethan court, and the politics surrounding the US and USSR atomic bomb projects. Both of these were interesting in themselves, but I was also developing an interest in current affairs.
It was at this time that I found the Science and Society Programme, headed by Steve Rayner. I convinced him to take me on as a student the next term, and we proceeded in an overview of the cultural theory approach to the interaction between science and society. I loved those tutorials, and the overarching feeling I had was that I was in the right place, though I wasn’t sure what it was. Concurrently, I was studying quantum cryptography, which involved learning the basics of all of the ways we can use quantum particles to encode information and transmit it securely. I dabbled for a while trying to connect my interests in cultural theory and quantum mechanics, laying out similarities in uncertainty management, but gave up fairly early on because all of the connections I could make were far too tenuous. I see that as the second big attempt at connecting two disperate concepts.
One thing I got out of my work in quantum cryptography was that it was a science heavily based on an application. The application, moreover, had, I thought, fairly large ramifications for society if it was fully developed. Imagine, on the positive side, banks that could securely transmit all of their information around the world in such a way that eavesdroppers cannot intercept the messages. Sounds good, right? But employing the same technology adversly, say to organise terrorist plots, is not as good. How do you keep the technology out of the hands of those who will do harm with it while giving it to those who will do good? How do you know who will do harm or good? Who is the ‘you’ that makes the decision? These questions fascinate me.
My last term I continued studying with Steve and in addition took a tutorial in understanding the role of secret intelligence in the wider policy process. My emphasis with the intel research was on understanding the role of intelligence in deciding what the issues are that it should focus on, and how it can effectively transmit its findings to those who need it (typically understood as policy-makers). ‘Science’, per se, had left the picture for the moment. I was now interested in decision-making. My work in cultural theory during this period focused on the concept of an emergent solution, i.e. one that was not decided by a single actor, to complex social problems. What does it mean for there to be decions with no decision makers? This term ended with two divergent interests and no real connection between them. I had an interest in how intelligence organisations were changing (or not) with the end of the Cold War and a seemingly unconnected interest with esoteric decision-making processes. I left these two in discord for the summer, as I returned to the US for a few months of work. I had been accepted for the MSc in Management Research (studying with Steve) by this point, and had also taken up the position of President of the Oxford University Strategic Studies Group. Again two interests that seemed to many (including my supervisor) not to coincide.
When I return to Oxford in the Autumn of 2003, I set about to learn all the ins and outs of doing research in the management discipline. My interest in management spawned solely from my association with Steve and his association with the Said Business School, where the Science and Society Programme is based. I say that quickly, but being connected to the business school has probably been one of the best things for me. It has allowed me to not become indoctrinated into the predominant disciplines arguing over the role of science in society, and thus I am more able to form my own opinion.
Early on in the year, in addition to my course work, I needed to decide on a dissertation topic. This was a bit of a playground for me, and it was the second time that I was able to research whatever I wanted (the first being my senior thesis). I have to admit, however, that I was a bit scared. The stakes were higher now, and I saw my choices as having a lot of effect on my future direction of research once I got to the DPhil (PhD equivalent). At the same time, I felt like I was interested in so many things that I could just be happy studying any of them, and wished that my supervisor would just give me a topic. He didn’t do this, and for that I am thankful because it made me try to understand what my diverse interests were and how they could be combined. In the end, and I mean the very end, I decided to focus on decision-making issues over science debates at the international level. Specifically, I looked at the role of the World Trade Organization’s Dispute Settlement Body and their ability to handle the full complexity of the dispute over argicultural biotechnology between the US and EU. My dissertation ended up not even mentioning management, but it was a piece of solid research, and thus got me a distinction in my degree. It also had no mention of security, intelligence, or strategic studies. This bothered me, and since then (this past August) I have been thinking about my desire to include these areas in my research, and how to best go about doing it.
After a few failed attempts at DPhil topics, Steve gave me the ugly sister diagnosis and sent me on my ponderous journey. The journey as I have described it so far is more chronological than ideational, and now I want to try to draw my interests together.
At the most philosophical level, I am deeply interested in the translation of the possible to the actual. I start from the standpoint that we cannot know what is outside of our perception. That is not to say it does not exist, but rather that we have no information on it. Of the things that we can perceive, before we perceive them we are only aware of the possibility of their existance (the possible). When we perceive them, they become actual and the function that described their probability of being one way or another has collapsed. Why do we perceive events one way and not another? Part of it is the way the information of the event is provided to us. An easy case would be that you are watching a movie and first the sound cuts out, then the sound comes on and the image cuts out. These are external filters on information that, for the purpose of argument, you cannot control. They are quite different from internal filters on information, such as covering your ears, then your eyes. The internal filters are ones that the individual places on himself.
More than the taking in of information (the perception), I am interested in how decisions are made. The decisions are based on information one perceives. How are these decisions made, and in particular, how do they relate to the internal and external filters applied to the information on which the decision is based? Also, how are new external filters established through which the decision (i.e. information about the decision) will be disseminated? These are the questions I feel will most likely guide the rest of my life.
In terms of my research interests now, I feel that the strongest external filters are those applied via technology. For instance, radio only allows for us to receive sound, whilst television allows video as well. The internet goes one step further by allowing interaction. non-information technologies are just as important here. For instance, a torch (flashlight) allows us to gain information we would otherwise not have, as do night vision goggles. A chair allows for us to receive more information at one place and time, by making us comfortable. A wallet is a repository of information. All of these technologies have had an impact on the way information about decisions is transmitted, received, and disseminated.
The most important decisions, I feel, are those that determine our ability to provide for our basic human needs (shelter, food, security). Meeting those needs seems to be the underlying principle of the nation-state (though I probably have a narrow interpretation of the nation-state here). More and more, however, I believe that our ability to meet those needs is transferring to the hands of non-state entities (NGOs, multinational companies, and even civil society). Who is making these decisions now, and what are the filters through which they perceive the information they base those decisions on?
Decisions are made when there is a situation with more than one perceived future. The most interesting types of decisions to me are ones that are over dilemmas, that is, ones where it is unclear as to whether one option is any better than the other, and yet the difference in outcome based on the decision is (or can be) very great. In a dilemma, as in other decision circumstances, there seems to be three orthogonal bases for decision making: rational, emotional, and moral/normative. While dilemmical decisions may use more than one basis, I find the moral/normative one the most intriguing because it is not suseptible to rational argument, nor is it explainable by resorting to emotions. I think that morality, as much as rationality, is what makes us humans. We live our lives based on what we think we should do (whether we do it or not).
I do not believe that we should all live by a single set of normative values. I think there is more than one viable way to justify our decisions, though I am not sure how much we are able to choose which of these ways we use. Certainly, one individual, or one group speaking as a whole, may not provide more than one justification for a decision, but the justification they provide may be different, even incommensurable, with justifications provided by other groups for their decision based on the same information. If we live in a world of multiple valid sets of incommensurable norms, then I feel we should foster the full complement of these sets rather than strive for one to win out over the others.
I believe that our (individual or group) normative stance is shaped by our surroundings, both social and physical. We may have different stances in different contexts, but in similar contexts, we would expect to hold similar stances. Do we? How do technologies change or solidify the contexts we find ourselves in? How can we (states, markets, and civil society) develop technologies that allow for multiple moral and normative stances to co-exist? These are questions I would like to address in my thesis.
Humans will most likely always find something to fight about, and I do not believe that is a bad thing. The less those conflicts threaten our basic needs, however, the better they are for society. Can we facilitate constructive argumentation (what some call argumentative democracy) to lessen the possibility of armed conflict? How might we be able to through technological developments?
This last point is most likely my weakest, though I think it is my most important, as it is my latest attempt at connecting two seemingly disperate areas. How strong do you think my grounding is? Where do you disagree?
~Sam
P.S. isn’t this fun?!
Things are certainly on the up-swing over here right now, and they are going well with my family as well. Emily has a great new job. Melissa and Stuart are watching