Dialogue

“Dialogue” comes from the Greek dialogos which means “through words”. Bohm discusses that if the spirit of the dialogue is present then there is no attempt to win an argument or discussion, or even make a particular view prevail. It is about common participation, in which people are not against each other but work with each other. So, in a dialogue, everybody wins (“David Bohm Society,” 2023).

History has shown that normal-scientific practice should separate the actual facts from a theory (Kuhn, 1970). However, they are often not perceived separate, there is not always honest science (Watts, 1951). Although honest science or truth is an idealistic viewpoint, and possibly unachievable (Bohm, 1992, 2003; Chong & Druckman, 2007; Gregory, 2018; Sang, 2009) it can lead to a false path where the map is confused with the territory (Korzybski, 2004; Scott, 1998). When the paradigm is fixed there is an irresolvable disagreement or logical disjunction in a scientific argument or theory when challenged with an alternative argument or theory (Kuhn, 1970). This lack of aporia is an ideological viewpoint where the belief in the scientific and technical process becomes polarised or dogmatic. When the scientific message is polarised, this division leads to conflict in the scientific community (Bohm, 1992; Bohm et al., 1996; Bohm & Krishnamurti, 2004). Science advocacy can replace honest science (Pielke, 2007).

The lack of aporia, or situation where science is taken as a matter of fact, has been observed by many scholars and leads to scientific bias (Agassi, 2016; Bohm, 1980, 1992, 2003, 2013; Bohm et al., 1996; Capra, 1975; Chong & Druckman, 2007; Cummings, Bridgman, & Brown, 2016; Foucault, 2005; Hall & Deardorff, 2006; Kuhn, 1970; Lakoff, 2008, 2010, 2014; Lambert et al., 2014; Parenti, 1986, 1996; Rosling, 2019; Scott, 1998). It thus appears that when a scientific fact is not aporetic the dogma destroys dialogue. Aporetic is used here rhetorically in terms of a doubt, uncertainty, and scepticism to the science.

David Bohm stated that dialogue can be considered as a free flow of meaning between people in communication (Bohm, 2013). With dialogue there is no predefined intention except the inquiry into the flow of thought and investigating the process of thinking collectively together. This allows group participants to consider preconceptions and prejudices behind their thought processes and meanings.

The intention is to enable an awareness of why verbal communicating is more difficult and open to division and conflict. Bohm stated that discussions and debates are more associated with reaching a defined outcome whereas dialogue is about exploring learning with an open conclusion (Bohm, 2013).  This is where there is a division between politics and science. Politics, rather than science, is a reductionist process aiming to create a single preferred choice of action (Pielke, 2007). Whereas honest science seeks to provide clarity on the scope (expanding it).

Policy and decision makers aim to frame situations appropriately to allow the scope to narrow the focus based on their own preferences. Science must remain impartial and free from political interference (Feynman, 2005). Dialogue allows the observer to go into the whole thought process and change the way the thought process occurs collectively. Doing so avoids conflict, dialogue is a tool for scientific inquiry (Bohm, 2013).

Scientific inquiry should be seen as a continuing process of exploring and discovering rather than aiming for a pre-determined outcome where science is often taken as a matter of fact (“David Bohm Society,” 2023). Hence the aim, in dialogue, is to engage with others who have different perspectives and experiences, to gain new insights and create new ideas that might not be possible without such collaboration.

Bibliography

Agassi, J. (2016). Popper and His Popular Critics Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos (Vol. 26). Springer.

Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge.

Bohm, D. (1992). Thought as a System. Routledge.

Bohm, D. (2003). The Essential DAVID BOHM (L. Nichol, Ed.). Routledge.

Bohm, D. (2013). On Dialogue. In L. Nichol (Ed.), On Dialogue. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203180372

Bohm, D., Kelly, S., & Morin, E. (1996). Order Disorder and the Absolute: An Experiment in dialogue.

Bohm, D., & Krishnamurti, J. (2004). The Ending of Time. In Krishnamurti Foundation.

Capra, F. (1975). The Tao of Physics. Boulder, Colorado: Shambhala Publications, Inc.

Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV.POLISCI.10.072805.103054

Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., & Brown, K. G. (2016). Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. 69(1), 33–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715577707

David Bohm Society. (2023). Retrieved from The David Bohm Society. website: https://www.davidbohmsociety.org

Feynman, R. P. (2005). The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist. Basic Books.

Foucault, M. (2005). The Order of Things. An archaeology of the human sciences. In A Companion to Foucault. Taylor and Francis e-Library.

Gregory, J. (2018). Effortless Living. Wu-Wei and the Spontaneous State of Natural Harmony. Simon and Schuster.

Hall, R. L., & Deardorff, A. V. (2006). Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy. American Political Science Review, 100(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055406062010

Korzybski, A. (2004). SUPPLEMENT III A NON-ARISTOTELIAN SYSTEM AND ITS NECESSITY FOR RIGOUR IN MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS. Semantic Scholar, 747–761. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-NON-ARISTOTELIAN-SYSTEM-AND-ITS-NECESSITY-FOR-IN-Korzybski/c29161b8e0971844c0919ea070f6868d28df7adf#citing-papers

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. In Knowledge and Postmodernism in Historical Perspective (Second). https://doi.org/10.5840/philstudies196413082

Lakoff, G. (2008). Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate – George Lakoff – Google Books. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Don_t_Think_Of_An_Elephant.html?id=zbJ1oxHC9a0C

Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment. 4(1), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030903529749

Lakoff, G. (2014). Praise for The All New Don’t Think of an Elephant! Praise for the first edition, Don’t Think of an Elephant! Chelsea Green Publishing.

Lambert, A. J., Eadeh, F. R., Peak, S. A., Scherer, L. D., Schott, J. P., & Slochower, J. M. (2014). Toward a greater understanding of the emotional dynamics of the mortality salience manipulation: Revisiting the “affect-free” claim of terror management research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(5), 655–678. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036353

Parenti, M. (1986). Inventing Reality. The Politics of the Mass Media. St. Martin’s Press Inc. New York.

Parenti, M. (1996). Dirty Truths: Reflections on Politics, Media, Ideology, Conspiracy, Ethnic Life, and Class Power.

Pielke, R. A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics, 1–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818110

Rosling, H. (2019). Factfulness. In Review of Global Management. https://doi.org/10.19083/rgm.v4i1.924

Sang, L. H. (2009). The Daodejing of Laozi The Living Dao: The Art and Way of Living A Rich & Truthful Life translated with annotations by The Daodejing of Laozi 2 2 Acknowledgements. Retrieved from https://www.ln.edu.hk/econ/staff/daodejing%2822 August 2002%29.pdf

Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state, seeing like a city. How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. In J. C. Scott (Ed.), Politics of Urbanism. Yale Agrarian Studies Series.

Watts, A. W. (1951). The wisdom of Insecurity. A Message for an Age of Anxiety. Vantage Books.