Excerpt from Chapter 1 of
A Little Book on a
New Unified Theory of Knowledge
Gregg Henriques
James Madison University
1
Chapter 1: Toward Unified Knowledge
How would the world be different if we possessed unified knowledge? What if we could
solve the mind-body problem, define what makes us human, and unite the natural sciences, the
social sciences and the humanities into a single overarching system of learning that could
provide a shared frame of explanation for all humanity? It boggles the mind to ponder the
implications of such a thing. And yet that is what this book is about. It offers a new “theory of
theories” that attempts to do all of this—and more.
Doubts regarding such claims are, of course, reasonable. But after almost five years of
presenting the unified theory at professional conferences, writing about it in academic journals,
and even chairing a conference on it and related ideas that brought together scholars from across
the academic spectrum, my early conviction that the unified theory has merit has been greatly
strengthened. The generally favorable reaction has been especially heartening because any
proposed unified theory faces an uphill battle. Although there was a time during the first half of
the 20th century when unifying knowledge was seriously pursued, these efforts were not
successful, and the current Zeitgeist generally does not hold big picture thinking in high esteem.
Many contemporary academics view such efforts as quixotic, even foolhardy. Combine this
attitude with the shear volume of information that exists and it becomes clear that a unified
theory that attempts to span all of human knowledge is going to encounter enormous difficulties
right from the start.
But if it is possible, unified knowledge is very much needed and not just for academic or
aesthetic reasons. Viewing the world from the bridge of a unified theory makes one realize just
how desperately we humans require a shared general understanding of the way the world works.
The most intractable and destructive of human conflicts involve at their root fundamentally
different assumptions, and the absence of a shared general frame makes communication
2
regarding those assumptions enormously difficult. Oliver Reiser was a philosopher keenly aware
of the need for integrating our knowledge. The following quote from his book, The Integration of
Human Knowledge, passionately describes this issue and carries even more relevance today than
when it was written a half century ago.
In this time of divisive tendencies within and between the nations, races,
religions, sciences and humanities, synthesis must become the great magnet which
orients us all…[Yet] scientists have not done what is possible toward integrating
bodies of knowledge created by science into a unified interpretation of man, his
place in nature, and his potentialities for creating the good society. Instead, they
are entombing us in dark and meaningless catacombs of learning. (Reiser, 1958,
p. 2-3, italics in original).
Reiser argued cogently for a global worldview that would ultimately lead to a “world
sensorium” in which individual humans, groups, societies and nations were all much more
harmoniously in tune with one another. Where might such harmony emanate from? What could
be the beacon that would orient us all? Reiser forcefully argued that human knowledge could be
interwoven to form a coherent scientific humanistic philosophy, one that provided a frame for
religion and morality, aesthetics, and scientific truth. Moreover, he pointed his finger at the
academy in general and science in particular and basically said, for shame. The foundational task
of synthesis has been woefully neglected and the obsession with technical, specialized
knowledge is entombing us in dark and meaningless catacombs of learning. Without the beacon
of organized, integrated, holistic knowledge, we will find ourselves further and further adrift,
awash in enormous technical know-how, but ultimately guided by primitive, partially correct,
local justification systems that condemn us to internecine conflicts and myopic actions.
3
Like Reiser, I believe that a move toward greater holistic knowledge would be beneficial,
and am hopeful it will happen. However, in stating that I am reminded of one of the few
genuinely wise statements that I would utter with some regularity when I was in high school
comes to mind: “Be skeptical of anything you want to believe.” As such, let’s examine some
cautionary notes associated with unifying knowledge. Of course, the first problem is so obvious
that it needs little elaboration. Assuming one starts with science and the scientific method as I do,
how on earth can the various lines of evidence be woven together to form a unified whole? This
is an enormous problem and the rest of this book outlines a possible solution.
The second criticism is more morally ominous in nature. Would a unified theory of
knowledge have the power to become a monolithic system that dogmatically stamps out
pluralism, the diversity of ideas, and free scientific inquiry? Would it put us in an intellectual
straightjacket and imprison the human experience? Would it crush religion and the freedom to
have faith? Because several critics have raised these kinds of questions regarding the unified
theory offered here, it seems prudent to proclaim the nature of these ideas and the type of
integration it offers. Consistent with notions of human dignity and free scientific inquiry and the
fact that strongly ideological visions have caused serious damage in both distant and recent
history, it seems appropriate to first proclaim a value of nondogmatism. The following quote
from the Buddha nicely captures this value:
Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for your teacher.
But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conductive to
the good, the benefit, the welfare of all things—that doctrine believe and cling to,
and take as your guide (Jones, 2005, p. 45).
4
Related to dogmatism is the notion of pluralism. Would we all become the same if a
unified theory of knowledge was developed? The short answer is “no”. The underlying
worldviews that currently guide human action and discourse can be characterized as being in a
state of “fragmented pluralism,” meaning philosophical worldviews that are fundamentally
contradictory and incompatible. Fragmented pluralism does not seem to be an ideal state of
affairs and at a very basic level I am advocating for a shift toward an integrated pluralism. An
integrated pluralism is where there are differences in emphasis that stem from disparate needs,
goals and other idiographic factors, but each individual is connected to the same, common base
of shared, general understanding.
Biological science found much theoretical unity with the development of the modern
evolutionary synthesis and thus provides a good example of the kind of unification offered here.
The modern synthesis occurred in the 1930s and 1940s and refers to the theoretical merger
between Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection and the science of genetics. Prior to this
point in history, biology was fragmented and there were two large groups of scientists, the fieldbased naturalists and the lab-based geneticists, engaged in a bitter feud regarding the
foundational explanations for biological complexity. They were in a state of fragmented
pluralism. Several conceptual bridges were then developed such that both sides could see that
they were each partially correct and synthesis was achieved: natural selection operated on
genetic combinations across the generations.
Has the modern synthesis resulted in a monolithic system that has stamped out diversity
of opinion? The vast majority of biologists would answer no. Some like Michael Behe and others
working on Intelligent Design have certainly made claims about the dogma of evolutionary
theory. And yet Behe and others have obviously had the freedom to challenge the status quo. In
5
fact, I think a cogent argument can be made that Intelligent Design has received far more public
attention than the substance of the ideas warrant. The point here is simple. Theories built by
scientists committed to the scientific method and the value of nondogmatism will not result in an
oppressive monolithic system that imprisons the human experience, but instead will result in an
integrated pluralism that results in the much more effective coordination of action.
But what really is meant by a unified theory of knowledge? In his popular book,
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, E. O. Wilson introduced the term consilience to capture
the concept of unified knowledge. He defined consilience as the successful linkage of theory and
facts that tied together the natural sciences with the social sciences and the humanities into a
common framework of explanation. Wilson’s consilient argument was bold and much needed,
and a single, all encompassing web of explanation is a good way to think about the concept of
unified knowledge. At the same time, there were a number of foundational problems with
Consilience.
Wilson’s view of unified knowledge was very similar to the logical positivists who
argued that nature existed in a hierarchy stretching from subatomic particles to human societies
and that as science progresses the more complex levels will be reduced to the levels beneath
them. In fact, at one point Wilson comments that everything from “the birth of stars to the
workings of social institutions, are based on material processes that are ultimately reducible,
however long and tortuous the sequences to the laws of physics” (p. 266). As we will see, the
unified theory of knowledge offered here agrees with the notion that knowledge can be unified
into a common framework of explanation, but challenges Wilson’s physical reductionistic view
by introducing a view of complexity that consists of different dimensions that emerge out of, but
are not causally reducible to the dimensions beneath them. In a nutshell, Wilson offered a view
6
of unification from the vantage point of the natural sciences, and many found his vision powerful
and convincing. At the same time however, many academics, especially those in the social
sciences and humanities, expressed strong criticisms of his work. These criticisms were strong
enough that that one author characterized Wilson’s consilience as failing in its goal of
interdisciplinary bridge building. I think the reason it failed is because it was missing some key
pieces that needed to be filled in by a social scientist. This book is about those pieces and how
unified knowledge can be successfully achieved with them.
The Four Pieces that Make Up the New Unified Theory
The unified theory consists of four interlocking pieces that combine to provide a whole
new way of thinking about
Figure 1.
The Tree of Knowledge System
human knowledge. They are:
1) The Tree of Knowledge
System; 2) Behavioral
Investment Theory; 3) The
Influence Matrix and 4) The
Justification Hypothesis. This
book offers a chapter on each
piece with a final chapter on
the implications the new vision has for the future. Here I will provide a brief overview of each
component. The first piece, the Tree of Knowledge (ToK) System, is a new picture or map of
cosmic evolution. Figure 1 offers the most basic representation of the ToK System, and we will
be adding more and more details to this basic foundation. Why is it called the Tree of Knowledge
7
System? One reason is that the metaphor of the tree is used to illustrate how various branches of
complexity emerge over time from more basic beginnings. Another reason is that the name
conveys a holistic, organic and systemic view of knowledge. Finally, the most fundamental
reason is that scientific knowledge has a story to tell about humanity and it is crucial that such
knowledge is presented in the context of a meaningful narrative that explicitly emphasizes a
moral component. It is in that spirit that the ToK is so named, as it is a reference to the Tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Bible. Of course, in the traditional Genesis story the message
is clear: obey God with blind faith and paradise will be delivered—challenge God’s authority
and all hell breaks loose.
In contrast, the message of the ToK System is that humanity has matured to the point
where it is clear that we must take charge of our own destiny, and to do so we must be
committed to asking questions about who we are and where we have come from and be
committed to developing rational answers. Thus, metaphorically speaking, we must eat heartily
from the Tree of Knowledge if we are to flourish. Yes, eating from the Tree comes with some
existential burdens. But it is our best hope. For it is only by acquiring such knowledge can we
successfully and deliberately coordinate our actions and move humanity away from Evil toward
Good. The final chapter in this book on the future of humanity speaks to these issues.
Returning to the diagram, the ToK System is a time by complexity map of cosmic
evolution that stretches from the beginning of the universe to the present. Perhaps the most
distinctive feature of the figure is the depiction of cosmic evolution as an evolving hierarchy
where in the beginning there is an Energy Singularity then there is Matter, followed by Life,
Mind and finally Culture. This hierarchical arrangement is in many ways commonsensical, and it
is a frame employed by many working on cosmic evolutionary models. It is also found in many
8
creationist narratives such as, for example, Genesis. However, there is much about the ToK that
makes it a very different look at this familiar conception. The most novel aspect about the ToK
System is the picture of cosmic evolution as consisting of four distinguishable dimensions of
complexity. All other models present the hierarchy of nature as a single dimension of complexity
that stretches from subatomic particles to human societies. The ToK System is consistent with
this frame in the sense that subatomic particles exist at the base and human societies at the top.
But, as we will see as this book progresses, the depiction of four different dimensions of
complexity changes everything. It is the needed change in perspective that allows one to see how
broad knowledge systems can be synthesized.
The dimensions of Matter, Life, Mind and Culture correspond to the behaviors of four
different classes of objects: material objects, organisms, animals and humans. Note that like the
relationship between squares and rectangles, each object class is a subset of the more general
class beneath it. Organisms are material objects, animals are organisms, and humans are animals.
We will return to this point later. But for now notice that here again we find a basic
categorization system that is quite familiar. Throughout human history, societies everywhere
have made distinctions between physical objects, plants, animals and humans. Aristotle, that
giant in the history of Western thought, made precisely such divisions. And children intuitively
understand this division as well. One of the proudest moments I have experienced as a father was
when my daughter, who was four years old at the time, surprised me with a drawing that now
hangs in my office. It depicted a rock, a tree, a mouse and a person, and in giving it to me she
said, “Look Daddy! I drew your work…Rocks, plants, animals, and people!”
The separate dimensions of complexity in the ToK diagram are intimately connected to
two of the three other pieces that make up the unified theory: Behavioral Investment Theory
9
(BIT) and the Justification Hypothesis (JH). BIT and the JH are what are known as “joint points”
the ToK System. Joint points are the links between the dimensions of complexity and they
provide the theoretical framework that explains how the higher dimension evolved out of the
lower dimension. Recall the discussion above regarding how natural selection was merged with
genetics to provide a much more unified theory of biological complexity. From the vantage point
provided by the ToK System, because the modern evolutionary synthesis provides the basic
explanatory framework for how Life evolved out of Matter, it can be thought of as the “joint
point” between Matter and Life. Using the ToK diagram, we can then ask: Are there joint points
between Life and Mind and between Mind and Culture? The short answer is yes, and BIT and
the JH are the respective theories.
Behavioral Investment Theory is the subject of chapter three. Although BIT
fundamentally is about animal behavior, the first point to be made about BIT is a point that
pertains to all organisms. All living things, including bacteria and trees as well as dogs and
dolphins need to coordinate the flow of energy in a manner conducive to survival. The reason for
this is because organisms are remarkably complex and require a precise flow of energy to fight
off entropy and maintain their organizational structure. The second point to be made is that
animals are heterotrophs, which means that they are dependent on other organisms for their
energy source and this, in turn, means they need to move around to locate food. A third point
about BIT is that multicellular animals required a communication system between the cells to
coordinate movement. This communication system is, of course, the nervous system. Combine
these three points together and you get the central premise of BIT, which is that the nervous
system evolved as a computational control center that computes the animal’s behavior on an
energy investment value system built via evolution and learning.
10
An example here might help get you thinking about the concept. Crows on the west coast
of Canada feed on whelks, which are a type of shellfish. The crows crack the shells of the whelks
by picking them up and dropping them onto the rocks below. BIT predicts that animals will
expend the least amount of behavioral energy necessary to achieve the needed outcome, which in
this case is a cracked shell that provides access to food. Researchers calculated the amount of
energy required by the crows to lift the whelk to the point that optimizes the likelihood that the
shell would break. If the crow does not lift the whelk high enough it will require several drops,
yet flying it higher would result in the unnecessary expenditure of energy. The calculations
found that the optimal expenditure of energy would be achieved by flying the shellfish to
approximately five meters and indeed this was very close to the heights the birds actually
dropped the whelks from.
The basic idea of BIT is that the nervous system has evolved into a behavioral investment
system that computes increasingly complex and flexible behaviors. Because BIT characterizes
animal behavior as the joint product of evolution and learning, it offers a clear frame to solve the
classic nature versus nurture debate. In fact, as will be explained in detail later, BIT is an idea
that links together five brain-behavior paradigms that currently are quite separate. They are: 1)
behavioral science; 2) cognitive science; 3) evolutionary theory and genetics; 4) neuroscience;
and 5) control systems theory. By conceptually integrating these five strands of thought, BIT
becomes a framework that allows for the unification of the general mind sciences, and thus it
represents the Life to Mind joint point on the ToK System.
The third piece of the unified theory is the Influence Matrix (IM), which is an extension
of BIT to the relational domain. One of the most significant transitions in evolutionary history
was the emergence of the capacity for parental care, which is seen minimally in reptiles, more
11
extensively in birds and most notably in mammals. Pioneered by John Bowlby, attachment
theory is the term used to describe the extensive lines of research into early parent-offspring
relations and the profound influences early experiences have on the developing individual’s
socio-emotional system.
The Influence Matrix is an
integrative model based on much
existing research in attachment and the
evolution of social behavior,
interpersonal processes and styles, as
well as the relationships between social
goals, emotions, and basic personality
traits. The IM comes with a diagram all
its own. As was the case with the ToK
diagram, Figure 2 offers the basic
representation of the IM and we will be adding some pieces later on. There are three key aspects
of the IM that I will highlight here. The first basic assumption of the IM is that social influence is
a resource all social mammals, including humans, are motivated to acquire. That is, like
nutritious food, social influence reflects a basic, primary need. Social influence refers to the
capacity to shape the behavior of important others in a desired manner. A somewhat simplistic
but nonetheless useful way of thinking about the amount of social influence a person has is to
conceptualize it as the joint product of social rank or degree of social control and reputation.
High status and an excellent reputation is a position of high social influence, whereas the
converse is a position of low social influence. The demarcated points on the figure of high and
12
low influence represent this dimension, and all things being equal, humans are predicted to be
motivated to approach high influence and work to avoid low influence.
The second key aspect of the IM is the x, y, and z axes in the middle of the diagram.
They represent the three conceptually distinct relational process dimensions that are associated
with the acquisition or loss of social influence. The three relational process dimensions are: 1)
social power (competitive influence); 2) love (cooperative influence); and 3) freedom (freedom
from influence). Social power is characterized by having control, greater social rank, or
superiority over others, and it is marked by the poles of dominance and submission. Love, the
second relational process dimension, is characterized by altruism, sacrifice and sharing, and it is
marked by the poles of affiliation and hostility. Although the term “love” is often used to refer to
the strongest affiliative bonds, usually among family and romantic partners, the term here refers
to the general sense of identifying and empathizing with others’ interests in a manner that
promotes cooperation and altruistic behavior.
The third dimension on the IM is called “freedom” and is represented by the poles of
autonomy and dependency. Unlike the other two dimensions, which involve directly influencing
others, the goal here is to avoid being influenced by others. This counterbalancing drive is
needed because all social exchange processes almost inevitably involve the process of
negotiation, which take time and energy that could be spent doing other things. This cost occurs
in the best of cases. In the worst cases, social exchanges can result in either being dominated and
controlled or sacrificing without receiving any beneficial return. To avoid this result, individuals
are motivated toward self-reliance and the avoidance of excessive dependency on others. In
short, according to the Influence Matrix, humans are naturally inclined toward maximizing their
social influence through achieving power, love, and freedom.
13
The final aspect of the IM to be emphasized here is the outer circle, which links social
motives and emotions. Emotions provide feedback regarding goals and orient the individual
toward action. Thus achieving status, love, and positive attention are intrinsically associated with
feelings of pleasure, hope and security. In contrast, being rejected, neglected, ostracized, or
punished are indicators of low influence and thus intrinsically associated with emotional pain.
The relationship between the emotions and their relative positions on the circle are crucial. For
example, shame and guilt are separate but are closely related. In contrast, guilt is the polar
opposite of anger. We will discuss the implications this has for the structure of our experience.
For example, we will examine how the IM helps explain why we often feel “anger-guilt splits”
when in conflict with others.
Other animals such as dogs, baboons, and chimpanzees clearly feel pleasure and pain,
think nonverbally, strive for dominance, defend their territories, and demonstrate strong,
complicated emotional attachments. Yet only humans write books, develop laws and religions,
build complex machines, engage in structured games, think about their eventual death—and the
list could go on and on. What, at bottom, makes us so different than other animals? The fourth
piece of the unified theory is called the Justification Hypothesis. The JH is a new theory of the
evolution of human self-consciousness and human culture and is the joint point between Mind
and Culture on the ToK. The Justification Hypothesis was conceived of prior to the overall ToK
System and can be considered a primary insight that laid the foundation for the development of
the unified theory. Because the concept of justification systems is crucial to the unified theory,
some elaboration on the development of the JH and how justification systems work is necessary
to help get a flavor for this concept.
14
But before I proceed further, a summary statement is in order. The argument being made
is that the unified theory consists of four new conceptual pieces that take us from Wilson’s call
for consilience to a coherent picture of consilience. As Wilson knows only too well, some of the
greatest hurdles to unified knowledge are found in the attempted linkages between the natural
and social sciences. In particular, there are major questions as to how we can move from our
scientific understanding of behavior at the physical and biological levels into the psychological
and finally the sociological levels, all while maintaining a consistent framework of explanation.
The unified theory shows how BIT, the IM and the JH fill in three major missing pieces that take
us from basic animal behavior to complicated socio-emotional attachments and finally into
human consciousness and culture. The ToK System, with its depictions of four separate
dimensions of complexity, provides the overall map. Together the four pieces allow for the
completion of Wilson’s consilient hypothesis.
The Development of the Justification Hypothesis
The central idea that organizes the JH is the notion that humans have such an elaborate
self-consciousness system because the evolution of language created the adaptive problem of
justification. Let me unpack this idea. It is commonly claimed that once the capacity for
symbolic language emerged, it afforded many obvious advantages in terms of communicating
information cheaply, thinking more flexibly, and effectively coordinating the behaviors of large
groups. The JH aligns with these assertions, and it adds a very important point. The point is that
the advent of language must have resulted in a new but crucially important biologically adaptive
problem for our hominid ancestors. With language, for the first time others had direct access to
one’s thought processes. This has the dramatic result of humans becoming the first animal that
15
had to explain why it did what it did. If one’s interests always matched others, this would simply
be a technical problem of translating one’s nonverbal thoughts into a symbolic form that could
be understood. But the fact of the matter is that interests frequently diverge, and this complicates
the process dramatically. Consider, for example, what would happen if a male was interested
forging a relationship with a particular female but she was paired with another male. Imagine he
starts spending time with her, but is then confronted by the other male with a question such as:
“Why are you spending so much time around her?” The last thing he wants to do is simply
translate his thought processes as follows: “I am hoping to separate the two of you and take her
as my mate.” Instead, he needs to justify his actions in a manner that affords social influence in
accordance with his other interests. So he might simply reply, “She is teaching me how to plant
seeds.”
As this analysis suggests, once language evolved to the point where questions could be
communicated, individuals must have faced the problem of justification. Moreover, there is
every reason to believe that individuals would have varied in their capacity to effectively justify
their actions, that such capacities are in part heritable and that effective justifiers would have
acquired more social influence and thus more reproductive success. Thus, it is completely
reasonable that the biologically adaptive problem of justification would have resulted in the
evolution of a mental organ of justification. And, as we shall see, the human self-consciousness
system has many design features that make it clear that it was shaped by the adaptive problem of
justification.
Insight into the JH came when I was immersing myself in the literature on evolutionary
psychology, social psychology, and Freudian theory. The manner in which the JH forms a hub
between these ideas will be spelled out in greater detail later. For now, I will share the moment I
16
experienced the proverbial “flash of insight” that ultimately led to the development of the JH. It
was in 1996 when I was a doctoral student in clinical psychology at the University of Vermont. I
had just completed a psychological evaluation on a woman in an inpatient psychiatric ward. In
her late thirties, she was diagnosed with Major Depression and what is called an Avoidant
Personality Disorder, which meant she was extremely shy, socially anxious and had remarkably
low levels of self-esteem. A woman with an above average intellect, she had graduated from
high school, worked as a teacher’s aide and lived in almost complete isolation on the brink of
poverty.
In a reasonably familiar story line, her father was an authoritarian, verbally abusive
alcoholic who dominated her timid, submissive mother. He would also be physically abusive to
her older brother, who was much more defiant of his power. She distinctly remembered several
episodes of her father beating her brother, while yelling at him that he needed to be more like his
obedient sister. Perhaps the most salient feature of her personality was her complete sense of
inadequacy. She viewed herself as totally incompetent in almost every conceivable way and
demonstrated an extreme dependency on the guidance of others. In presenting the case to my
supervisor and classmates, I argued that the network of self-deprecating beliefs served an
obvious function, given her developmental history. Namely, the beliefs she had about herself had
justified submission and deference in a context where any form of defiance was severely
punished.
I arrived home about a half an hour late following discussion about the patient and found
myself explaining to my wife that traffic was particularly bad. Traffic had been bad, but the
reality also was that it only accounted for about ten minutes of my tardiness. I had left work
twenty minutes later than anticipated because I was eagerly discussing the patient’s dynamics
17
with my fellow students. In a moment of heightened self-reflection, I became acutely aware that
this reason was less emphasized as I explained my actions. My mind had effortlessly accessed
the traffic reason and just had effortlessly suppressed the reason that was significantly less
justifiable, at least as far as my wife was concerned at the moment.
It was upon reflecting on my own justifications and how they were selected that the broad
generalization dawned on me. The patient wasn’t the only individual whose “justification
system” for why she was the way she was could be understood as arising out of her
developmental history and social context. No, processes of justification and thus the
development of justification systems are ubiquitous in human affairs. Arguments, debates, moral
dictates, rationalizations, and excuses, as well as many of the more core beliefs about the self, all
involve the process of explaining why one’s claims, thoughts or actions are warranted. In
virtually every form of social exchange, from warfare to politics to family struggles to science,
humans are constantly justifying their behaviors to themselves and to others.
Moreover, it was not only that one sees the process of justification everywhere one looks
in human affairs that made the idea so intriguing. It became clear upon reflection that the process
is a uniquely human phenomenon. Other animals communicate, struggle for dominance, form
alliances. But they don’t justify why they do what they do. Indeed, if I had to boil the uniqueness
of human nature down to one word, it would be justification. We are the justifying animal.
Justification Systems at the Individual and Societal Levels
Culture is the fourth dimension of complexity on the ToK System and is considered the
dimension of justification systems. Justification systems are the informational glue that binds
individuals together and creates human culture on the large scale. They are made up of networks
18
of interlocking justifications, which are linguistically mediated beliefs and values that legitimize
actions or claims. It is important to state here, especially in the context of the above examples,
that justifications are not the same as rationalizations. A rationalization is when someone
generates a reason for their behavior that legitimizes their actions and hides the truer but more
painful or less acceptable cause or causes. Nancy McWilliams, a well known psychodynamic
theorist, describes the process of rationalization as follows:
People rarely admit to doing something just because it feels good; they prefer to
surround their decisions with good reasons. Thus the parent who hits a child
rationalizes the aggression by allegedly doing it for the youngster’s “own good”;
the therapist who insensitively raises a patient’s fee rationalizes the greed by
deciding that paying more will benefit the person’s self-esteem; the serial dieter
rationalizes vanity with an appeal to health. (p. 124-125)
Although all rationalizations are justifications, not all justifications are rationalizations. This
book can be thought of as a justification for the unified theory, but it is not a rationalization.
Justifications can be thought of as existing on a dimension from defensive rationalizations to
objective scientific truths. As mentioned, justifications interconnect to form justification systems,
and to get an initial flavor for how such systems function, two examples will be offered. One is
of a therapy case I recently supervised, and another is of a prominent large-scale justification
system that exists almost exclusively in America: Young Earth Creationism.
The patient was a 15-year-old African American girl who had strong feelings of hatred
toward her mother. As is often the case, her feelings of hatred were private and split off from
others—it was several sessions before she even shared them with her therapist. And, as is also
often the case, her feelings were not with out objective reason. Her mother could be controlling,
19
tactless, self-centered and unempathetic. But at the same time it was readily apparent that the
mother loved her daughter and that much of the mother’s insensitive behavior toward her
daughter stemmed from the fact that she was dealing with a number of stressors, including a new
husband suffering from a chronic and worsening illness, financial concerns, and a newborn baby.
She also had been raised in a group home and much of her controlling behavior represented an
attempt to compensate for her own experience of neglect.
From a therapeutic standpoint, it was pretty clear that the patient’s strong feelings of split
off hatred had the potential to be maladaptive, both in terms of her relationship with her mother
and in terms of her own developing identity. Because of this, a natural therapeutic inclination
was to build up the daughter’s capacity to be empathetic and accepting of the mother. But if one
were to go straight toward these goals early in the therapeutic relationship with questions like
“Don’t you think your mother is controlling because she is compensating for her own feelings of
being neglected?” the attempts almost certainly would have been thwarted with angry replies.
The reason is the degree of emotional resistance is directly proportional to the degree of threat
new ideas have to the foundation of the existing justification system.
In this case, the daughter’s sense that she was justified in hating her mother was central to
her identity. Consider that one time in therapy she was talking about how some of her friends say
they hate their parents because were grounded or had to clean their room. Imagining they were
right in front of her in the therapy room, she said loudly and strongly: “Don’t even tell me that!”
Her friends’ comments made her angry because they potentially trivialized her feelings. Unlike
her friends’ minor grievances, she believed her hatred was genuinely justifiable. And for her
hatred to remain justified she needed to believe that her mother’s actions toward her derived
from badness inherent in her mother. Any implication that she should see the world through her
20
mother’s eyes in a more sympathetic way threatened that foundational conclusion and thus went
to the very core of her identity. Only after her sense of self was strengthened could she be open
to reevaluating her hatred of her mother. As such, before any change could occur the therapist
must first validate her experience of feeling hatred, in addition to building up her identity in
other ways. Once new structures of her self-concept were in place and the therapist demonstrated
enough evidence that she had her best interest at heart, then the idea that perhaps her mother was
not an evil person after all could be digested into her justification system.
Large-scale systems of justification are in many ways similar. Large-scale justification
systems are the networks of linguistically mediated beliefs and values that coordinate
populations of people. Just like the patient, societal justification systems can emerge that result in
an entrenched hatred where the identity of the in-group is foundationally anchored to belief that
the despised out-group is genuinely evil. The Israeli-Palestine conflict comes to mind as an
example of such a system. A clash of societal justifications that is associated with far less
bloodshed, but nonetheless is comes with much animosity and profound ramifications for
American culture is the creation-evolution debate. Paralleling the psychology of creationism with
the psychology of the daughter mentioned above allows for further illumination of the dynamics
of justification.
Young Earth Creationists are fundamentalist Christians who believe in the inerrancy and
literal interpretation of the Bible. And from this foundational assumption they believe that Adam
and Eve were real people, and that the Universe and everything in it was created approximately
6,000 years ago. (One clergyman, the Archbishop James Ussher, claimed in 1650 that the
moment of creation occurred on October 23, 4004 BC). From this central starting point, all data
pointing toward evolution and an ancient earth and universe are resisted and rejected. While
21
ideas about a young earth and biblical inerrancy have long since disappeared from mainstream
academia, the concepts are very much alive in mainstream America. Since 1982, Gallup polls
have surveyed Americans regarding their beliefs about the origins of man, using the following
three statements: a) God created man in his present form 10,000 years ago or less; b) Man
evolved over millions of years and God guided the process; and c) Man evolved via natural
processes over millions of years-God had nothing to do with it. The results of this poll have been
remarkably consistent over the 25 years it has been taken. Between 44 and 47% answer that God
created man 10,000 years ago or less, 35 to 40% answer God guided evolution and between 9
and 13% answer man evolved naturally. If you believe, as I do, that believing the earth is young
is scientifically akin to believing it is flat, then these numbers are jaw dropping.
When one looks at the recent history of the creation-evolution debate there are good
reasons to believe these numbers will not change in the near future. One important reason is
because there has been a shift in the approach scientists have taken in the past decade—they no
longer want to debate the issue. In 2001, Richard Dawkins and Stephen J. Gould wrote a joint
letter agreeing to no longer debate any creation scientists, justifying their decision by stating that
the very act of debating lends credence to the notion that there is a scientific debate about these
issues, when in fact there is none. But while the academy has withdrawn from the discussion
there is no inclination that creationist viewpoint is retreating. In 2007, a $28 million dollar
Christian Creationist Museum opened in XXX, Kentucky, and three out of the ten Republican
candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination proclaimed that they did not believe in
evolution.
Opting against the stance of Gould and Dawkins, in November 2006 I engaged in a
public debate with a young earth creationist. In that debate, I explicitly stated that I did not think
22
the debate was about science, but did see it as a clash of justification systems and larger
worldviews. Framed that way, I certainly believe it is a discussion that needs to be had.
Approximately 75% of the 150 or so individuals who attended were creationists and surveys
taken both before the debate and after demonstrated the well known fact that foundational
justification systems tend to be stable and individuals tend to digest information consistent with
existing beliefs and discard antithetical information. Virtually all the individuals who were
creationists remained creationists and believed my opponent was more persuasive, whereas the
contrast was the case for those inclined toward an evolutionary view.
Knowing what I know about the nature and organization of belief structures, my primary
goal was not to convince the creationists in the audience that evolutionary theory was valid and
creationism was not. Instead, utilizing the concepts mentioned above in the context of the
therapy room, my goal was much more indirect. I wanted to introduce to these individuals the
idea that evolutionists are not conspiracy driven, anti-God leftists who are dismissive of the
foolishness of young earth views. To accomplish this goal, I opened my comments with a picture
of arch-terrorist Osama Bin Laden to demonstrate connection via a shared enemy. I also made
explicitly gracious statements about the fact that my opponent had taken me out to dinner. After
the debate I was surrounded by a number of creationists in the audience who were very curious
about my beliefs and values and were quite appreciative of my taking the time to share my
views. Importantly, several local news paper articles were written on the debate and emphasized
the civil nature of the discourse, with one editorial suggesting it was a model for how political
discourse could occur.
One of the most interesting and important elements about the JH is that it makes
predictions about how people will reason. For example, if people seek justification, then people
23
should resist evidence that they perceive makes their position unjustifiable. Moreover, the theory
predicts they should justify that resistance by pointing out threats or damaging consequences of
opposing views. It is important to note that technically speaking this is a fairly radical prediction.
Many philosophical, economical and psychological theories take as their starting point the
assumption that humans are purely rational creatures who examine evidence dispassionately and
arrive at logically reasoned conclusions. In contrast, the proposition that our verbal system was
designed to arrive at justifiable conclusions paints a somewhat different picture. The JH says we
humans are far more like lawyers than basic scientists when we reason. Evidence is emphasized
or de-emphasized depending on one’s interests, the social context, and previous justifications.
Let’s look at Young Earth Creationism through the lens of the JH. Unlike viewing
individuals as scientists who examine evidence and then arrive at conclusions, the JH predicts
that people will emphasize or reject evidence based on their existing justification system and
social context. In the case of Young Earth Creationism, the JH predicts that because they resist
evidence of evolution they should view evidence for an old earth as a threat. This is precisely the
case. Ken Ham is President of Answers in Genesis, and he spearheaded the development of the
Creationist Museum. In a letter to his constituency, he explained why they “cannot allow for a
fossil record” and “cannot accept millions or billions of years of history”:
[When] Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept man’s fallible dating
methods to interpret God’s Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible can’t be
trusted. They have essentially sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of
revelation, can determine truth and impose this on God’s Word. Once this ‘door’ has
been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible. You
see, if Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the world’s
teachings in geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and use these to (re)interpret God’s Word,
then the door has been opened for this to happen in every area, including morality.
24
In short, in a manner that parallels the patient’s resistance to empathizing with her mother,
Young Earth Creationists resist evidence for an old earth because it is interpreted as a threat to
the entire Christian justification system. It is interesting to note that if you removed the validity
of this threat-based claim, you remove much of the justification for Young Earth Creationism.
Given the success and influence of Catholicism, it seems readily apparent that Ham’s fears are in
fact misplaced.
These examples were offered because recognizing the process of justification in
ourselves and the social context of justification in which we live is absolutely crucial, and it will
be a theme that is returned to over and over in this book. By thinking about our beliefs and
values in terms of justification systems, a better understanding of what we believe, what we
reject and why in both others and ourselves emerges. I believe this will foster greater selfreflective awareness and more honest dialogue. Furthermore, Young Earth Creationist views are
useful to understand because the anti-evolutionary sentiment is an enormous sociopolitical
problem in America, and its popularity represents a failure of the academic system to clearly
present its consensual knowledge to the public in a manner that allows it to be effectively
digested.
There have been two primary reasons for this failure. The first is that scientific
worldviews are often presented in the absence of a value system, and consequently many
individuals outside science experience evolutionary theory as a threat to their moral and
explanatory sensibilities. Consider that John Gribbin, an excellent and popular science writer,
opened his book The Scientists with the line, “The most important thing that science has taught
us about our place in the universe is that we are not special.” What he meant is that science has
repeatedly disconfirmed the many different creation myths that various peoples have invoked to
25
justify why humans are unique. However, science cannot prove or disprove a value-based claim.
If we agree that humans are special by definition, then this is a value-based claim that cannot be
tested for accuracy and thus is outside the bounds of science.
The second reason Young Earth views continue to attract a significant popular following
in America is because of the fragmentation of human knowledge. This is not to say that the
academy has not reached consensus regarding the age of the earth or the fact of evolution. It has
and any professor espousing a young earth view of reality in a mainstream academic institution
faces enormous pressure and is justifiably deemed a pariah. Nonetheless, problems of
fragmentation have prevented the effective dissemination of academic knowledge to the public.
One of the major features of the unified theory is that it streamlines existing academic
knowledge into a unified system that can be depicted on a T-shirt. The heuristic value of this
depiction is difficult to overstate. Science education is in desperate need of a shot in the arm.
With the ToK, for the first time, students can be handed a picture that shows them our cosmic
evolutionary history from the Big Bang through the present, depicts the four fundamental
dimensions of complexity (Matter, Life, Mind and Culture) and shows how these dimensions
correspond to the four major domains of science (Physical, Biological, Psychological and
Social), each of which has their own foundational theory (Quantum Gravity, Modern Synthesis,
BIT, and JH). The anecdote about my daughter suggests the possibility that even very young
children can grasp the essence of the depiction.
For the remainder of this chapter we will examine three broad domains that are relevant
to the current problems associated with fragmented knowledge in academia. In each case, the
lens of the unified theory allows us to move toward an integrated pluralism. The first domain we
will touch on is the relationship between science and religion. Although there is much
26
controversy in the public regarding these two knowledge domains, in actual fact there is relative
harmony between them in academia. I believe it is quite easy to see how this harmony is
achieved when one realizes that the academy is divided into two broad domains of justification,
the sciences and humanities, which have different goals that organize them. The second
symptom of fragmentation we will explore is the so-called “science wars” which pitted hard
nosed natural scientists against the “science studiers”, social scientists exploring the social
construction of scientific knowledge. The science wars represent probably the most acrimonious
aspect of the divide between modernism and postmodernism, which is one of the key fault lines
in today’s knowledge systems. Finally, we will examine the great sociobiology debates. The
controversy surrounding sociobiology provides an excellent example of the problems bridging
the natural and social sciences. Consequently, it will afford us an opportunity to use the unified
theory to show how the various perspectives can be synthesized into a more coherent whole.
27