The Rise of a New Approach

In the 1920s, a cadre of thinkers in Berlin and Vienna, much like today's Silicon Valley elite, became captivated by the engineering mindset. With advancements in electricity and internal combustion and the validation of Einstein’s theory of relativity in 1919, it seemed that scientific precision could solve anything.

However, human affairs remained as chaotic as ever. Just a decade earlier, Europe had stumbled into one of history's most devastating wars. Social sciences appeared no more sophisticated than superstitions, while philosophical debates had not progressed significantly from those of the ancient Greeks.

These intellectuals believed that human endeavors could be founded on a more rational basis, drawing inspiration from Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus, which described a reality composed of “atomic facts” that could be combined to form “states of affairs.” Wittgenstein famously stated, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent,” implying that anything unprovable should be disregarded.

They coined their movement logical positivism, adhering to verificationism, asserting that only verifiable claims held meaning, relegating all others to nonsense.

A Crisis of Foundations

Unfortunately, the confidence of the logical positivists concealed significant underlying issues. As they sought to establish social sciences on a rational foundation, logic itself faced a foundational crisis.

At the heart of this crisis was a perplexing paradox, illustrated by the statement, “The barber shaves every man who does not shave himself.” The issue? If the barber shaves every man who does not shave himself, then who shaves the barber? If he shaves himself, he contradicts the statement; if he doesn’t, he also contradicts it.

This seemingly trivial Barber’s Paradox is a simplified version of Russell’s Paradox, which had baffled mathematicians and logicians for years. For a logical system to be valid, statements must be provably true or false. For example, 2+2 must always equal four. Yet this paradox revealed a gap that remained unbridged.

The situation escalated when David Hilbert, a leading logical positivist, proposed a framework based on three tenets: mathematics must be complete, consistent, and computable. The goal was to resolve the foundational crisis, close the gap at the heart of logic, and allow logical positivists to advance their agenda.

The System’s Collapse

Hilbert and his colleagues received an unexpected reply sooner than anticipated. In 1931, just 11 years after Hilbert’s proposal, 25-year-old Kurt Gödel published his incompleteness theorems, shattering their hopes. Gödel demonstrated that a logical system could be either complete or consistent, but never both.

In simpler terms, Gödel proved that every logical system is destined to fail eventually. Logic would remain forever flawed, dashing the positivists' aspirations. Clearly, one cannot construct a society based on a fundamentally defective logical system. The world would continue to be chaotic.

Yet the fallout from the collapse of logic yielded far more unexpected outcomes than anticipated. In 1937, building upon Gödel’s work, Alan Turing addressed Hilbert’s computability problem and discovered that not all problems are computable, but he also found a silver lining. His proof included a description of a simple machine capable of computing all computable numbers.

Ironically, Turing's machine heralded a new era of digital computing. These systems, designed with the understanding that they would inevitably fail, have proven to be remarkably effective, provided we acknowledge their inherent flaws. To tackle significant challenges, we often must first relinquish our illusions.

Rethinking Our Approach: From Engineers to Gardeners

The 20th century ushered in remarkable scientific advancements. We triumphed over infectious diseases, ventured into space, and decoded genetics. Thus, it was logical to consider applying an engineering mindset to various fields of human endeavor. However, it is now evident that this approach has long outlived its usefulness.

It would be convenient if societal well-being could be distilled into a single metric like GDP or if a company’s success could be encapsulated entirely in its stock price. Yet, as Danny Hillis has observed, we now live in an age of entanglement, where even a limited number of variables can give rise to unexpected complexities.

We must adopt a more organic perspective, thinking less like engineers and more like gardeners who nurture and cultivate ecosystems. The logical positivists were oblivious to what they were nurturing, but the outcomes of their efforts proved to be far more remarkable—and significantly more beneficial—than they had originally intended.

As I noted at the outset of this tumultuous year, it is time to reconnect with our humanity. We find ourselves at a pivotal juncture. Technology will not be our savior. Markets will not rescue us. What we truly require is to make better choices.

Greg Satell is an international keynote speaker, advisor, and bestselling author of Cascades: How to Create a Movement that Drives Transformational Change. His previous book, Mapping Innovation, was recognized as one of the best business books of 2017. To learn more about Greg, visit his website at GregSatell.com and follow him on Twitter @DigitalTonto.

This video features Will Larson discussing the engineering mindset and how it can shape our understanding and approach to technology and society.

In this video, experts explore the future of platforms beyond traditional engineering, emphasizing the need for adaptability and new paradigms in technology.