Regarding coherency in abstract models

-

Most are certainly familiar with the famous quote from Walt Whitman’s poem ‘Song of Myself’ from 1855:

-

"Do I contradict myself?

Very well then I contradict myself,

(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"

-

Interpreting this quote in the context of theoretical models outside and inside our minds, does it give any insight to learn from for our perspective on these models?

-

Your inner mental model of the world (reality) and how it operates, are partly based on experiences you have had directly, and information from external sources, providing a model for the explanation of certain phenomena. Through the path of life, we encounter many such models and create our hybrid version that for many is hidden and unaware of its major influence on our interpretation of the world and our perspective of it.

-

A result of this multitude of exposure to a variety of models (in philosophy, politics, science, social theories, and any field that is studied) is that most of us, probably unaware of most of them, are holding contradictory beliefs from different models that are not compatible with each other. As many of us are having an aspiration that our model should be 100% coherent and logically sound throughout, this can be seen as a negative and faulty attribute of our model.

-

There is however another side to holding contradictory beliefs, contained in the same model even though they are not compatible. Both beliefs might be true (or probable) but placed in a model that is constructed wrong or limits other plausible explanations based on its underlying assumptions (which all models have at their core). The contradiction, instead of being seen as something to get rid of, and choosing one or the other to fit our model, could instead provide an opportunity to examine the assumptions and the structure of the model, to try to figure out why these two pieces of probable pieces do not seem to fit together in our puzzle.

-

It is easy to get stuck in a model that seems to explain a lot of things and that has a large amount of empirical evidence to back it up and reject any explanation that does not fit in at face value to this model. This is of course not a good way of conducting philosophy or research in any field, as you now judge propositions after their compatibility to an uncertain model (however probable the model seems), instead of being open to the possibility that the model may need to be altered, or seen from a different perspective.

Our many human biases do not make this task any easier.

-

One can, or at least I am, therefore concluding that it is perfectly reasonable to hold contradictory views or explanatory models incorporated in our inner mental model, with the knowledge that everything is open to change with new information, insight, or perspective. This allows for an open mind that is not bound to the current models as being static or infallible, but just the opposite, it embraces uncertainty and allows us to reflect from multiple perspectives with different sets of underlying assumptions.

-

This is my interpretation of the great poet's famous quote, whether he himself meant it to be interpreted in this way or not, does not really matter. 

-