129 — Rules, A Conversation with Prof. Lorraine Daston

The title of today’s episode is “Rules.” The term “rules” encompasses a variety of concepts, including algorithms, maxims, principles, models, laws, regulations, and even laws of nature. In essence, rules shape our world and our lives. My guest for this conversation is Prof. Lorraine Daston.

Lorraine Daston is Director Emerita at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin, a Permanent Fellow of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, and a Visiting Professor in the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago. After studying at Harvard and Cambridge Universities, she taught at Princeton, Harvard, Brandeis, Chicago, and Göttingen Universities before becoming one of the founding directors of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin, serving from 1995 until her retirement in 2019. She has published extensively on topics in the history of science, including probability, wonders, objectivity, and observation. She is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, the Leopoldina National Academy of Germany, and a corresponding member of the British Academy.

One of her recent books, titled Rules — the namesake of this episode — will be at the center of our discussion. For our German audience, a German translation of this book is also available. 

This episode has another inspiring connection: in Episode 120, I spoke with her husband, Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer. If you are German-speaking, I highly recommend listening to both episodes, as you’ll find a number of overlapping and complementary topics and ideas. 

We start with tie question: what are rules, algorithms, maxims, principles, models, laws, regulations — and why such a wide net was cast in the book.

»One way of thinking about rules is to think about them along the axis of specificity versus generality.«

What are thick and thin rules then? Is this a second axis, perpendicular perhaps, to the previous? When are we supposed to exercise judgement — or is a rule supposed to cover all circumstances? How does an unstable and unpredictable world fit into this landscape of rules?

“No rules could be given to oversee when and how rules could be legitimately broken without an infinite regress of rules, meta-rules, meta-meta-rules, and so on. At some point, executive discretion must put an end to the series, and that point cannot be foreseen.”

What about Immanuel Kant and his book titles?

Did our lives become more or less predictable? 

»Seit der Antike gilt: es ist egal wann sie geboren sind oder sterben, es läuft immer dasselbe Stück – Dies stimmt seit 200 Jahren nun nicht mehr.«, Peter Sloterdijk

Is the assumption correct that in the past lives were very unpredictable in the short term but rather predictable in the mid and long term, where this is the opposite today?

What can we learn from the rule of St. Benedikt?

Why is it impossible to define rules without exceptions and judgement — what is Wittgensteins example?

“Even what seems to us a straightforward rule — does require interpretation. […]  We cant simply solve the problem of rule following by adding meta-rules of interpretation. This is a procedure which will go on to infinity.”

Why is this a deep and fundamental problem for bureaucracies? What happens if rules get overbearing?

How do we teach rules? Why is “rule as model” an important concept? How do we know that we mastered something?

»I think typical of the things we do best that we are no longer conscious of doing them«

What is the relation between power and rules? We makes the rules, who executes the rules and who has to follow the rules?

“sovereignty as the power to decide on the exception” Carl Schmitt

The German scientist Thomas Bauer asks the question: Did we loose are tolerance for ambiguity?

»Wer Eindeutigkeit erstrebt, wird darauf beharren, dass es stets nur eine einzige Wahrheit geben kann und dass diese Wahrheit auch eindeutig erkennbar ist.«

»Nur dann, wenn etwas rein ist, kann es eindeutig sein.« Thomas Bauer

What is the connection between tolerance for ambiguity and trust?

»There is something really quite strange going on here about this voracios appetite for control, predictability and certainty. The more you have, the more you want.«

Does the desire for purity lead to moralistic arguments and dogmatism? What can we learn from Francois-Jacques Guillote and total surveillance and control in the 18th century and today?

»The more you try to close the loop holes, the more loop holes you create«

What do we learn from all that about the modern world? Do complex societies/organisations need more or less rules? How should these rules be designed?

»It's much better to have a system which has very few rules and the rules are formulated as general principles