When exploring global challenges and developing responses to them, it is beneficial to distinguish between descriptive vs normative statements. The foundational difference between them is akin to the distinction between "is" and "ought". A descriptive statement outlines what is—a factual representation or observation of reality, while a normative statement proclaims what ought to be or happen—an expression of value, ethics, or preference.
As our society progresses and information proliferates, it's increasingly challenging to establish clear, unanimous descriptive statements. The reasons vary: misinformation, biases, cognitive dissonance, or genuine scientific uncertainty. If society can't converge on the "is", then how can we ever hope to agree on the "ought"? Without a shared reality, our ethical and normative debates become unanchored, leading to paralysis or misguided actions. If we can’t align on an accurate description of the situation it becomes much harder, if not impossible, to align on a shared understanding and normative agreement for how to respond.
A few examples of current challenges to align on descriptive statements:
While most scientists agree that anthropogenic activities are driving climate change and transgressing planetary boundaries, there are debates about the severity, the exact mechanisms, and the timeline. What is the exact state of our environment?
The vast majority of scientific studies affirm that vaccines are safe and crucial for public health. Yet, a good portion of the population views it otherwise. Without a clear consensus on the belief that vaccines are safe, or clear evidence to the contrary, it becomes more difficult to advocate for what society ought to do about vaccination policies.
While data can show widening wealth gaps, the reasons and implications are contested. Is it the result of policy, inherent market dynamics, or something else? Our response (the "ought") depends heavily on our understanding of the "is".
How close are we to creating a superintelligent AI? Regardless of whether we get there, or the timeline, what are the inherent risks in the ways people will instrumentalize AI? Expert opinions diverge. If we aren't aligned on the descriptive state of AI, shaping normative guidelines for its development becomes challenging.
Create spaces for open, respectful dialogue among experts, stakeholders, and the public. Diversity in perspectives often leads to a richer understanding.
Equip people with the skills to discern credible sources from misinformation. Encourage critical thinking and the value of evidence-based reasoning.
Make data and methodologies accessible. This enables peer review, fosters trust, and allows for reproducibility.
In areas of genuine uncertainty, design policies that can be adjusted as new information emerges.
Even when disagreements exist, there's often common ground to be found. Starting from these areas can lead to more effective, inclusive solutions.
In the quest for shared understanding, it's imperative to remember that attacking individuals for their descriptive statements—even if we disagree—only deepens divides and hinders progress. Everyone operates from a unique vantage point, informed by their experiences, knowledge, and values. Attacking them for their perspectives discourages open discourse, inhibits learning, and erodes trust.
This doesn’t mean that all perspectives are equally valid or effective at describing reality. Epistemic relativism is ultimately not helpful either. It can easily manifest as the worst descriptive statements becoming those that get the most attention, especially in a polarized echo-chamber of today’s media landscape. It is just to say that society could benefit from a more robust capacity to have healthy debate about descriptive statements without attacking people for their positions. It is also helpful to separate out the task of aligning on descriptive interpretations from activity of putting forward normative positions about what we should do. The normative is the terrain where the real battle lies - the ought statements for what we should do about the situation we find ourselves in.
In a world flooded with information, it's never been more crucial to differentiate between the "is" and the "ought". By understanding the nuances, fostering dialogue, and promoting evidence-based thinking, we can navigate our shared challenges with greater clarity and purpose. In the journey toward shared understanding, respect, patience, and openness are our most valuable assets. Even in disagreement, we must recognize the inherent value in diverse perspectives and the richness they bring to the collective conversation.