The parable of the blind men and the elephant is used to illustrate how biases can blind us,

preventing
us from seeking a more complete understanding on the nature of things. It is often incorrectly used as a
warning against the promotion of absolute truths.

The story of the blind men and an elephant originated in India (Pali Buddhist Udana) from where it is
widely diffused. Made famous by the great Sufi master Jalal ud-din-i Rumi (1207-1273 c.e.) in his
Mathnawi of Jalalu’ ddin Rumi, the parable has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies.

The parable went something like this:

In a distant village, a long time ago, there lived six blind men. One day the villagers announced, “Hey,
there is an elephant in the village today.”

They had never seen or felt an elephant before and so decided, “Even though we would not be able to
see it, let us go and feel it anyway.” And thus they went down to the village to touch and feel the
elephant to learn what animal this was and they described it as follows:

“Hey, the elephant is a pillar,” said the first man who touched his leg.

“Oh, no! It is like a rope,” argued the second after touching the tail.

“Oh, no! It is like a thick branch of a tree,” the third man spouted after touching the trunk.

“It is like a big hand fan” said the fourth man feeling the ear.
“It is like a huge wall,” sounded the fifth man who groped the belly.

“It is like a solid pipe,” Said the sixth man with the tusk in his hand.

They all fell into heated argument as to who was right in describing the big beast, all sticking to their
own perception. A wise sage happened to hear the argument, stopped and asked them “What is the
matter?” They said, “We cannot agree to what the elephant is like.”

The wise man then calmly said, “Each one of you is correct; and each one of you is wrong. Because each
one of you has only touched a part of the elephant’s body. Thus you only have a partial view of the
animal. If you put your partial views together, you will get an idea of what an elephant looks like.”

At various times it has provided insight into the relativity, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth,
the behavior of experts in fields where there is a deficit or inaccessibility of information, the need for
communication, and respect for different perspectives.

Although the parable’s function is to call attention to a lack of objectivity and consideration of other
approaches and perspectives when trying to understand the nature of things, we do have to warn that
not all perspectives are equally valid, and even valid arguments are not necessarily equally sound.

Each of us lives in our own world, with our own life experiences and sensory perceptions, which often
lead us to biases characterized by a lack of general objectivity, open-mindedness or the consideration of
the points of view of others. In a world where issues are usually and uncritically two sided: black or
white: good or bad; ethical or unethical, it is easy to fall into heated debates, each defending a point of
view often times equated to truths.

The elephant in this sense represents reality, and each of the worthy blind sages represents a different
approach to understanding this reality. In all objectivity, and in line with the poem of John Godfrey Sax,
all the sages have correctly described only a piece of reality, but fail by arguing that their piece of reality
is the whole truth.

AND SO THESE MEN OF HINDUSTAN

DISPUTED LOUD AND LONG,
EACH IN HIS OWN OPINION
EXCEEDING STIFF AND STRONG,
THOUGH EACH WAS PARTLY IN THE RIGHT
AND ALL WERE IN THE WRONG.

JOHN GODFREY SAXE

Unless we can piece together the realities of the sages we can in no way be objective, and we will fail to
understand the whole elephant.

HOW CAN ANYONE DESCRIBE THE WHOLE UNTIL HE HAS LEARNED THE TOTAL OF THE PARTS?

Inductive Reasoning requires more than one piece of evidence. Real research requires inquiry and the
use of more than one source of information.
Fallacy of Composition
(also known as: composition fallacy, exception fallacy, faulty induction)
Description: Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some
part of the whole. This is the opposite of the fallacy of division.
Logical Form:
A is part of B
A has property X
Therefore, B has property X.

Example #1:
Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the building weighs less than a
pound.
Example #2:
Hydrogen is not wet. Oxygen is not wet. Therefore, water (H2O) is not wet.
Example #3:
Your brain is made of molecules. Molecules do not have consciousness. Therefore, your brain
cannot be the source of consciousness.
Explanation: I included three examples that demonstrate this fallacy from the very obvious to
the less obvious, but equally as flawed. In the first example, it is obvious because weight is
cumulative. In the second example, we know that water is wet, but we only experience the
property of wetness when the molecules are combined and in large scale. This introduces the
concept of emergent properties, which when ignored, tends to promote magical thinking. The
final example is a common argument made for a supernatural explanation for consciousness.
On the surface, it is difficult to imagine a collection of molecules resulting in something like
consciousness because we are focusing on the properties of the parts (molecules) and not the
whole system, which incorporates emergence, motion, the use of energy, temperature
(vibration), order, and other relational properties.
Exception: If the whole is very close to the similarity of the parts, then more assumptions can
be made from the parts to the whole. For example, if we open a small bag of potato chips and
discover that the first one is delicious, it is not fallacious to conclude that the whole snack (all
the chips, minus the bag) will be just as delicious, but we cannot say the same for one of those
giant family size bags because most of us would be hurling after about 10 minutes of our chip-
eating frenzy.
References:
Goodman, M. F. (1993). First Logic. University Press of America.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/88/Fallacy-of-Composition
Can’t see the forest for the trees. (idiomatic, in the negative, by extension) To be overwhelmed by
detail to the point where it obscures the overall situation. To focus only on small details and fail to
understand larger plans or principles, as in Alex argues about petty cash and overlooks the budget-he
can't see the forest for the trees. This expression is a proverb used as early as 1546 in a collection by
John Heywood. Another example: “The congressman became so involved in the wording of his bill that
he couldn't see the forest for the trees; he did not realize that the bill could never pass.”

Blind Men and the Elephant

Blind Men and the Elephant – A Picture of Relativism and Tolerance

The Blind Men and the Elephant is a famous Indian fable that tells the story of six blind sojourners that
come across different parts of an elephant in their life journeys. In turn, each blind man creates his own
version of reality from that limited experience and perspective. In philosophy departments throughout
the world, the Blind Men and the Elephant has become the poster child for moral relativism and
religious tolerance.

So, oft in theologic wars 

The disputants, I ween, 
Rail on in utter ignorance 
Of what each other mean; 
And prate about an Elephant 
Not one of them has seen!
Blind Men and the Elephant – Philosophical Parable
The Blind Men and the Elephant is an ancient parable used today as a warning for people that promote
absolute truth or exclusive religious claims. The simple reason is that our sensory perceptions and life
experiences can lead to limited access and overreaching misinterpretations. How can a person with a
limited touch of truth turn that into the one and only version of all reality?

Blind Men and the Elephant – Theological Truth

When it comes to the moral of the Blind Men and the Elephant, it seems that today’s philosophers end
their agenda too quickly. Doesn’t the picture of the blind men and the elephant also point to something
bigger -- The elephant? Indeed, each blind man has a limited perspective on the objective truth, but that
doesn’t mean objective truth isn’t there. In fact, truth isn’t relative at all… It’s there to discover in all its
totality. In theology, just because we have limited access to Truth, that doesn’t mean any and all
versions of Truth are equally valid. Actually, if we know the Whole Elephant is out there, shouldn’t this
drive us to open our eyes wider and seek every opportunity to experience more of Him?

Is There A God?

Is There a God? - The Question

"Is there a God?" This question is answered by asking another, "how did we get here?" 20th century
science has demonstrated, with certainty, that the universe is not eternal; the universe had a beginning.
Actually, mankind has contemplated this issue for millennia, long before science proved a beginning. In
all that time, man has conceived of only two possible solutions -- either Someone made the world, or
the world made itself.
Is There a God? - Creation
"Is there a God?" Unless we can demonstrate the world is capable of creating itself, God is the default.
The incredible design that permeates all things implies a Designer. Natural laws (cause and effect,
thermodynamics, gravity, etc.) imply a Lawgiver. Personal creatures imply a Personal Creator. Since
everything we observe in the universe is an effect, there must have been a First Cause. Unless we are
able to explain satisfactorily how each of these things exist, without resorting to a supernatural force,
and find empirical evidence to support our conclusion, a Creator is default. Furthermore, any derived
conclusion must be within the bounds of natural law, as natural law is a part of the universe and remains
unbroken within the universe.

Is There a God? - Atheism

Is there a God, or isn't there a God, depends on our ability to disprove God. The burden of proof rests
upon atheism to validate its position. Currently, the common alternative to Special Creation via a
Personal Creator is the Big Bang Model of Origins. This is the accepted theory today. It is a wonder how
this theory came to be accepted, as it violates two of the three Laws of Thermodynamics, and the Law of
Cause and Effect. Furthermore, as retrograde motion is observed throughout the universe, even within
our own solar system, the Big Bang violates the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Beyond
these violations of natural law, the Big Bang is unable to explain uneven "voids" and "clumps"
throughout the universe. Plus, there remains the question, "where did the Big Bang come from?" This
question remains unsolved, even in the minds of atheists. A few atheists hypothesize that the universe is
eternal and only appears to have had a beginning. This contradicts quite a few empirical evidences and
observations, as well as violating natural law.

Is There a God? - The Implications

"Is there a God?" is not a difficult question. The question that seems most perplexing is, "why are we
determined to explain away God?" Let's give credit where credit is due. It seems that if there is a God,
then we would be His creatures, and therefore, accountable to Him. Of course, this is not acceptable to
a determined portion of mankind's intelligentsia. These "scholars" have a good control of the majority
through arenas such as the public school system and the broadcast media. We are not exposed to both
alternatives. We're not taught the problems with evolution, naturalism and materialism. We are simply
taught the Big Bang is fact. The result is that we are not educated, we are indoctrinated. Unfortunately,
the ultimate result is that we and our children are taught that there is no Divine Lawmaker, and
therefore, there is no absolute law or morality. Everything in today's society, including moral codes and
civil laws, are merely relative. "Survival of the fittest!" is the rally cry. No one stops to consider why or
how morality developed, or that it seems to only function as a means for the survival of the weakest.
Because we are taught there is no God, what would cause us to consider that perhaps there is a God and
He instituted morality? Evolution is unable to account for the development of the moral code inherent
in all of us. We simply ignore this truth, just as we seem to be ignoring God altogether. Society suffers
tremendously as a result of our children being taught we share a common heritage with rocks and
plants. Individuality, meaning and purpose no longer mean anything. And we wonder why our kids act
like animals today.
Cultural Relativism

Cultural Relativism: All Truth Is Local

Cultural Relativism is the view that moral or ethical systems, which vary from culture to culture, are all
equally valid and no one system is really “better” than any other. This is based on the idea that there is
no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right and wrong is a product of society.
Therefore, any opinion on morality or ethics is subject to the cultural perspective of each person.
Ultimately, this means that no moral or ethical system can be considered the “best,” or “worst,” and no
particular moral or ethical position can actually be considered “right” or “wrong.” 

Cultural relativism is a widely held position in the modern world. Words like “pluralism,” “tolerance,”
and “acceptance” have taken on new meanings, as the boundaries of “culture” have expanded. The
loose way in which modern society defines these ideas has made it possible for almost anything to be
justified on the grounds of “relativism.” The umbrella of “relativism” includes a fairly wide range of
ideas, all of which introduce instability and uncertainty into areas that were previously considered
settled. 

Stepping up to the edge of a cliff gives you a good perspective of the terrain below. Taking one step too
far, as cultural relativism does, is simply a disaster. 

Obviously, perspective is important to our understanding of history, psychology, and politics. Cultural
perspective can help us understand why certain actions are considered right or wrong by a particular
culture. For example, an ancient society might have considered dyeing one’s hair green to be a
punishable offense. Most modern societies would find that strange, if not oppressive. Yet, good cultural
perspective might tell us more. If we were to find out that green hair was a sign of a prostitute, we
would understand that it wasn’t the hair color itself, but the prostitution that was truly considered
“wrong.” 

However, the problem with moving from cultural perspective to cultural relativism is the erosion of
reason that it causes. Rather than simply saying, “we need to understand the morals of other cultures,”
it says, “we cannot judge the morals of other cultures,” regardless of the reasons for their actions. There
is no longer any perspective, and it becomes literally impossible to argue that anything a culture does is
right or wrong. Holding to strict cultural relativism, it is not possible to say that human sacrifice is
“wrong,” or that respect for the elderly is “right.” After all, those are products of the culture. This takes
any talk of morality right over the cliff, and into meaningless gibberish.

Cultural Relativism: Absolutely Impossible

The contradiction of cultural relativism becomes immediately apparent. A society that embraces the
notion that there is no ultimate “right” or “wrong” loses the ability to make any judgments at all. The
way in which relativism, including cultural relativism, has permeated modern society is demonstrated in
the bizarre ways in which we try to deal with this contradiction. “Tolerance” has mutated to imply
unconditional support and agreement for all opinions or lifestyles. However, those who choose to be
“intolerant” are not to be supported or agreed with. Tolerance, therefore, becomes an “ultimate good”
in and of itself, which is contradictory to the entire idea of relativism. In the same way, heinous crimes
such as rape and murder demand a moral judgment -- but strict cultural relativism cannot say that such
things are always wrong. 

Relativism in general breaks down when examined from a purely logical perspective. The basic premise
is that “truth is relative.” If every truth statement is valid, then the statement “some truths are
absolute” must be valid. The statement “there are no absolute truths” is accurate, according to
relativism -- but it is an absolute truth itself. These contradict the very concept of relativism, meaning
that absolute relativism is self-contradictory and impossible.

Cultural Relativism: Crumbling Away

In practice, cultural relativism cannot overcome the boundaries of logic, nor can it override the sense of
morality inherent to mankind. We instinctively know that some things are wrong, so cultural relativists
attempt to tweak their philosophy to fit that need. Declaring certain actions “mostly” wrong, or “mostly”
right is nothing more than making up the rules as one goes. Saying that some morals are “better,” even
if they aren’t “the best,” still implies some ultimate standard that’s being used to make that judgment.
How do you know which cloud is higher unless you know which way “up” is? To firmly state that
anything at all is always wrong is to reject relativism itself. In the end, those who insist on clinging to
cultural relativism must jettison logic, because there isn’t room for both. It is literally impossible for a
person to rationally believe that there are no moral absolutes, or at least to live out that belief in any
meaningful way. 

Since this philosophy is nonsensical, there must be some fundamental absolutes of right and wrong,
regardless of the opinions of any given society. Since there are disagreements among different cultures,
we cannot assume that these truths are developed by one particular group of people. In fact, the only
logical place for these concepts to originate from is something more universal, or at least more
fundamental, than culture.