Mindwalk, Deming, and the Nature of “Truth”

This blog entry is an excuse for me to post a link to the flawed but nevertheless fascinating philosophical explorations in the movie “Mindwalk”. I have recommended it to a colleague with whom i have been sharing a fine conversation because I think it can help people get unstuck from their conventional way of looking at things. It is about 112 minutes long.

MINDWALK: Should you take the time to watch it?
It does take patience. Read one reviewer’s opinion HERE.

The balance of this post pertains to my understanding of Deming’s view of a theory of knowledge. My ruminations are informed by the works of C. I. Lewis and Walter Shewhart, both of whom were cited by Deming in various books and conversations. Click here to read on.

From my correspondence with John B.

Our common sense (since the Scientific Revolutions of the 18th Century) tells us that we make empirical observations of what is out there, describe those observations, and set forth an explanation of those observations in the form of theory. In other words, our observations are valid and reliable input regarding what is “OUT THERE” irrespective of our theories. In this sense, the phrases “empirical observation” and “objective observation” are very closely related. Using your concept of “model”, our job is to model our objective observations in a way that allows us to infer general laws governing the true behavior of the world. Over time, we will get closer and closer to the truth.

What Deming, et. al. are claiming vis a vis theory of knowledge is that our ability to observe is constrained by our means of knowing…the human mind. Our means of knowing is contextual. The constraints of this contextuality include what is important to us (our aims), and structurally speaking, the causal connections (if this, than that) that are governed by 4 dimensions that constitute our sensory bandwidth—space and time. This means that for us to be aware of events in the world, we must FIRST impose upon that world, some theoretical framework. “Thought” does not and cannot occur without the framework of theory. Child development studies actually trace how infants acquire these mind structures. This is why Deming says, “We must be guided by theory”. If we are not guided by theory, we have only “nonsense” He might just have well have said (as Shewhart did) We ARE guided by theory. This is the nature of human knowing.

(It is interesting to note that studies of children raised in isolation from others, (e.g. ferral child studies and a few experiments in the Soviet Union) these children do not develop thought as we know it. It seems that they are not able to simply observe the world objectively through their senses and spontaneously form theory about how the world works. Without symbolic interaction with significant others—mom, dad, uncles, etc.—they have no means by which to acquire a theory of world. They are able to react in the world, in much the way animals do, but without the robust instinctual repertoire of those animals. Left to their own devices, they perish without theory. In child development, the opportunity to acquire this initial theoretical foundation is limited to a very young age. After a certain point in the development process, the opportunity recedes, with disastrous results for the individual.)

PDSA (Plan Do Study Act) is a means by which we set forth and acknowledge the theory we begin with (PLAN). We act in accordance with that theory (DO). We make observations and measurements to see if that theory has predictive value in terms of our aims—if it works (STUDY). Given anomalous outcomes, we ACT to modify our theory in order to make it more effective in terms of our aims. There is no reference to external truth. There is only the operationally defined key quality characteristics that we have deemed important and useful for our purposes. The system of PDSA is internally self-consistent. It is guided by our AIMS, which Deming emphasized, cannot be determined on the basis of numbers or any observations other than our needs and desires. He stated these as create jobs, joy and pride in workmanship, and a better world. (I agree with his aims.)

There is much study across many disciplines that supports this view of how we think and act in the world and I have referred to sources in many of my posts. If we assume that Deming saw this difference as representing a more effective view of how humans behave, we should also ask why he thought it was important and transformative. Deming saw that this difference was one in which humans acknowledge that their efforts at understanding do not lead them to greater and greater truth—maybe they do and maybe they don’t. We cannot know. What is important is that our efforts lead us to greater and greater effectiveness in terms of our enterprises—building cars, growing food, reducing human misery, and making a better world. The onus of responsibility for our creative efforts is shifted from the limits of a “true world” out there, to the openness of what becomes possible by using our knowledge-creating minds. We move forward. We continuously improve the efficacy of our actions. The world “Out There” doesn’t care, but we do. Human enterprise is not a game. Lives depend on it.

I hope you can see from my discussion above that this view actually enables useful and productive investigation. In fact, it opens up the possibilities by exposing the constraining conditions imposed by our belief that we apprehend “truth”. Truth to an aboriginal tribe is that animistic beings dictate the fates of men. Truth to the Greeks was that heavenly gods determined men’s fate. Truth to the Hebraic tribes was that one unnamable G_d governed the actions of men. Truth to the early Christians was that Jesus, the son of the Hebraic tribe’s G_d gives men a choice between the paths “true good” and “true evil”. Medieval Christians believed the Pope in Rome could dictate the word of God that must be followed. The science of the 18th Century dictated that the world is a clockwork of parts that can be discovered, catalogued, and once fully grasped by human investigators, reconstructed at will. Einstein made everything relative to the speed of light but couldn’t deal with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle because he believed “God does not play dice with the universe”.

The discoveries of the 20th Century made it clear that our systems of belief are themselves relativistic. The only truth is that our sense of what is true is a function of our system of belief…our system of knowing. Have we reached the end of belief…have we humans finally found a means of knowing what is really “true” using the scientific method? Deming regarded this question as useless nonsense. What counts is what we aim to do and how effective we are in realizing (making real) those aims.