Finding and Using what’s Most Likely True.
Over the last couple decades, I’ve increasingly attempted to engage in discussions on aspects of how we everyday citizens figure out what is likely true, what we believe, and where we stand on things. Even among the well-educated, 99.9…% of us aren’t experts on anything, let alone everything. I’ve tried to have this discussion in a variety of settings: face to face; small groups; with my chemistry and physics students; and on social media.
No one reading this needs to have much imagination to picture that this discussion is not easy, and I’ve been tempted to simply quit trying to engage. Why continue with a difficult task? Well, there’s this — we have the privilege and responsibility of voting, and thus of hiring the crew that runs the ship. No one wants one-party rule or monolithic thinking, but especially at a time when this fairly new idea of alternative facts further confuses and can lead to cynicism, it seems to me that it would be very constructive to still find ways to engage in honest dialogue, and attempt to find somewhat common ground-rules so we’re at least playing in the same ballpark.
Do we blindly trust the experts, or go to the other extreme of dismissing them as useless and elitist? Do we just trust our clan, be they an ethnic extension of our family, or — more recently — people of the same religious or political upbringing? Is there, or is there not, something like a strategy which everyday folk can use to help figure out what is likely true, and come to consciously understand why we choose to take the stands we do? And then can we use the insight and perspective gained to figure out how to do necessary things in facing the challenges of our times?
When we get used to mixing any combination of beliefs which we simply like, and don’t critically analyze the bases for those beliefs or the intrinsic incongruities among them, we get comfortable just not worrying about, even thinking about, the underpinnings of any of what we claim to be our truths. We get, we have already gotten, comfortable just believing what we want to believe, and dismissing whatever we don’t initially like, without ever exploring or risking discovering the underpinnings of things we don’t immediately like.
What’s the problem with that? Soren Kierkegaard observed that “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true. The other is to refuse to accept what is true.” As is hopefully obvious, we must follow that duh truth with the tough question of “How do we figure out what is true?” Can we remotely presume that we just got lucky in being born into the ‘right’ culture and subculture? What have the centuries shown to be our best ‘tool’ for figuring out what is true?
Consider: It’s the process of figuring things out in a science-like way where we put our ideas to the test. In doing this we commit to respecting verifiable evidence, and we pre-commit to being willing to change our minds, to update our ideas to best fit the preponderance of the evidence that we have. Let’s see how this fits as a thorough and honest way of figuring out what is likely true.
Do we just leave this process to the experts, the scientists in both the hard sciences and in the social sciences? And then do we allow ourselves to dismiss the most informed people, these experts, these scientists, when they then reach conclusions which we don’t like? How do we, the vast majority of whom are non-experts in any field, decide where we tentatively stand on all kinds of issues, and therefore how we will vote on related matters?
Most anyone would readily concede that simply going with a majority opinion is not wise, and is lacking in any substantive depth. After all, when Copernicus first advocated for heliocentricity, he was in a very tiny minority. So was Wegener with plate tectonics, and… we have some idea how long this list could get.
So if not a simple majority vs. minority, what then? Consider this: Ask if there has been a multi-decade-long, clear and continuing, Shift in where the experts take their stand. This idea stands the test of time. We can even picture it graphically. On the horizontal X axis we have time (often in years and decades; sometimes centuries), and on the vertical Y axis we have % consensus. One curving line on our graph represents an existing idea, a line sometimes with deep roots in time; it starts out at, let’s say 99%. Another curving line represents a new understanding, and starts out at 1%. Over the decades those lines cross, the first on its way down, the second on its way up. Again, history is full of examples beyond earth-centered shifting to sun-centered, and fixed continents shifting to moving continents.
And importantly, there are examples of this science-like approach being self-correcting. In the first half of the 1800s the idea of phrenology got going, with trained scientists, including physicians, behind it. The new idea was taking off; it was climbing significantly from 1% upward and upward. But it never got anywhere near even 75%, never mind 95%. It turned back and headed down. Why? Because the evidence didn’t support it. A consensus of explanation didn’t and couldn’t evolve in support of something which didn’t have evidence coming from a number of different directions.
The reason that this is important is that this is how scientists and engineers solve problems… and it’s how whole societies, and civilization writ large, must also face and solve broad problems. To ignore evidence, to dismiss newly developed explanatory and predictive consensus, primarily because you don’t like the evidence and the consensus, is to stay stuck with an old idea which has been shown to not hold water in light of newer evidence. Scientists and engineers can’t and don’t do that (and stay relevant), and neither can we (and be able to meet the challenges of our times).
Further, think of how remarkable it is for us, non-experts, to say of a newly developed consensus and the evidence which led to it, “I’m sticking with the traditional idea which I happen to like, and I think I know better than you all.” Would we classify it as “courageous,” or “blind, regressive, and ignorant-while-arrogant” to defend and stick with: geocentricity, fixed continents, a flat earth, racist beliefs in white superiority and black sub-humanity, etc. We must ask the same of so many things. What about special creation of every species, the vast majority of which are found only in the fossil record — never showing back up after one of those 5 mass extinctions? What about insisting on a young earth?
The reason these old ideas aren’t harmless if quaint relics of times past which can be left alone, is this: When this habit of dismissing whatever we don’t like, and doubling down on what we simply want to believe, is either ignored or accepted & cultivated & reinforced, it then gets in the way of honestly addressing the challenges of our times. As we will see in a moment, there is real harm to the broad society, to all of humanity, when this is done.
Before going on with the challenges of our times, I must pause and point out that there is a model which works quite well wherein we can ignore, without harm, various ideas which in no way, shape, or form meet our test of being grounded in objective evidence and in consensus among those most informed on a topic.
Today virtually no one who is not Amish takes a fair number of their beliefs any more seriously than we take the assertion that the earth is the center and is flat. Why don’t we hear public challenges to Amish ideas? Think about it. No one remotely needs to challenge their ideas because the Amish don’t try to impose their ideas on the rest of us, they don’t try to make the whole of society fall in line with their ideas by trying to manipulate things in such a way that a democracy might vote that policy into effect. It must be noted here that because no one needs to challenge their beliefs, they are free to practice their beliefs, they aren’t bothered, and they don’t feel picked on, complaining that their beliefs aren’t enacted into law for everyone to live by.
I want to briefly address here our frequent use of the terms conservative and progressive. Let’s clarify that it would be wrong to take the position that either conservatism or progressivism has some intrinsic moral inferiority, or moral superiority. Modern research has shown that at their core, in conservatives we’re looking at personality preferences for (and fears of) certain things: tradition, authority, obedience, punishment, training, recitation, conformity, order, an absence of gray areas, constancy, a greater emphasis on perceived immediate risks which could affect “us”, and a smaller and tighter circle of “us”. In progressives we’re looking at: change, questioning, exploration, ambiguity, rehabilitation, education, nuance, variety, a greater emphasis on perceived long-term risks which could affect all, including “others” (including future generations), and a broader and looser circle of “us” with an inclination to draw “them” in, creating new understandings of “us”. There’s much recent research in this area. It’s interesting to see ways in which our previous simpler understanding and labeling of these characteristics has become more deeply explanatory. We used to consider any communist, anywhere, to be on the liberal, not conservative, end of politics. Yet in the early 1990s, after the Soviet break-up and at the tail end of Russia’s brief flirtation with capitalism and democracy, frightened Russian Conservatives, trying to protect their status quo, their tradition, what they knew, worked to take Russia back to what the masses thought would be communism again, though it turned into simply authoritarianism with oligarchs mixed in strange ways with the central committee… and they succeeded.
Again, nothing about these differences in personality or preferences is intrinsically morally or otherwise “better” or “worse.” I submit however, that a trip back through time might be fairly revelatory here.
On the ship of our nation, we passengers hire the crew which runs the ship. In our weighing of the relative merits of conservatism and progressivism, let’s ask ourselves about these general philosophies and actions through the generations. It is worth noting that as the last half millennium ticked by, one of the consistent features of conservatism has been a striving to maintain one’s tradition, whether specifically focused on governance, religion, economic policies, or general societal habits.
Conversely, one of the central features of progressivism has been a push for, or at least willing acceptance of, change in these things. It is important to note that conservatives, in the American context, have not always been Republicans, nor progressives always Democrats; for essentially a century prior to 1960, a good southern conservative was a Democrat.
It is worth noting that over the centuries -
Conservatives wanted to maintain monarchies; progressives wanted to move toward democracy.
Conservatives wanted to guard the buying of indulgences to ensure going to heaven; progressives wanted a flexible theology which could be re-evaluated, and changed to fit new senses of justice, right, and a broader understanding.
Conservatives wanted to maintain slavery; progressives wanted to end it.
Conservatives wanted women to stay within roles which were and are limited in multiple ways; progressives wanted to broaden women’s roles in society, including voting, opportunity in an ever- wider array of careers, and something as fundamental as the seriousness with which their thoughts, memories, and very words are taken.
Conservatives wanted capital to be the central controlling power in industry, even if it meant workers (including children) were significantly exploited; progressives wanted to promote workers’ rights, including better pay, more reasonable hours and safer working conditions, and the legalization of collective bargaining.
Conservatives wanted to keep things like interracial marriage illegal; progressives wanted to leave things like that to the individuals, meaning it should be a legal choice.
Conservatives wanted to maintain as much racial separation as possible, including the ability to legally discriminate in residential, business/employment, and political (voting) policies; progressives wanted to push for firm civil rights for all.
Conservatives wanted to minimize encumbrances on business by avoiding regulations as to how they dispose of noxious waste products; progressives wanted to protect water, air, and land for all generations, even if it meant some inconvenience and expense to waste management.
Conservatives wanted and still want to maintain traditional limitations on access to the legal rights and privileges of marriage; progressives wanted and still want to allow consenting adults who want to marry to do so, be they two people of any particular nature.
Conservatives want business to be able to pay employees whatever market conditions permit, which in practice means whatever they can get away with; progressives want to ensure that equal work merits equal pay without regard to sex or race, and that a full-time job yields more than a poverty existence.
It is interesting that the common features of these philosophical and practical battles put on display the justifications used to maintain the tradition of the day, including the use of key cultural authorities like scripture. (i.e. Kings were “God’s anointed;” “Slaves, obey your masters;” and “Women, obey your husbands… and don’t speak up in church.”)
It is also worth noting that on most features, the policies advocated by each camp have over time maintained a fairly standard scenario. One case in which an interesting reversal occurred fairly early on is that of the relative size of government which they advocate for. In the days of monarchies, those in power of course wanted to keep power, and as conservatives wanting to maintain their (privilege) tradition, they liked big government, including intrusive law and big police and military might. Progressives back then wanted to weaken the monarchies, and thus wanted more limited government.
At first the change from this was relatively slow; but as democracy grew past infancy and developed the beginnings of stable roots, and the power of kings was increasingly constrained if not overthrown completely, progressives found that one of the most effective tools through which to push for reforms was through the power of the sub-branches of democracy like legislatures (not to leave out the executive and judicial branches which have also played roles).
As this developed further, progressives began to favor bigger government, for through it they could legislate change. Those who had occupied previous positions of privilege and power relative to the general population now didn’t want these new and unrelenting forces of change to succeed, and thus they came to favor limited government. The reversal was now fairly complete.
Before moving on from this “size of government” issue, let’s note a motto often used by conservatives. We’ve all heard someone say, “that government which governs best, governs least.” If that were true in anything near an absolute sense, anarchy would be a symptom of “good” governance. The other end of the spectrum can also be overplayed; there really is such a thing as too much government. In seeking a situation-appropriate middle ground, we would do well to recognize that on an increasingly crowded planet with evermore thinly spread and limited resources being competed over with greater intensity, that in order to not begin a descent toward anarchy, we’re going to need solid and wise governance. This doesn’t have to be a top-down break away from democracy; it can best be achieved by participation-intense direction provided by educated, informed, concerned, and involved citizens who hire and fire crews in order to guide the ship of our nation, and the ship of civilization, away from unnecessarily troubled waters.
So, as I look back on our many conservative-progressive struggles, I ask myself — Would we actually like to turn the clock back on any of these changes? Were the conservatives right in opposing change? Were the progressives wrong to push for these changes? Does this give us any potential lessons on our inclinations today? Have there been points in history when we had it just right… all the needed changes had already been made, and no further changes should be made? You and I must seek honest answers.
What kind of country, and more broadly, what kind of civilization, do we want to have participated in creating?
I hope we might eventually create a world where a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian, a Hindu, a Buddhist, and more, will all say, “I know that had I been born in another family, culture, or century, I would most likely believe in a different God; I can no longer pretend that my God is any more right or legitimate than other people’s Gods, and I certainly won’t kill over it.”
And yes, I hope we might eventually create a world in which more and more of us will, with conviction and commitment, say, “You know what, I will no longer try to impose my beliefs on the evidence; I will impose the evidence on my beliefs. I will constantly be open to changing my mind, just show me the money, let me check the evidence. I will seek solutions to the challenges of our times, and personal convenience can not be a factor.”
Some have argued that this is simply expecting too much, that it is asking for what doesn’t come naturally. Well, it is asking a fair bit, and it does indeed not come naturally measured at the level of simple animal instinct. But let’s ask a few more things.
We, like all creatures, have a lengthy history, deep roots. A hyena which ate really well the evening before, might wake up and think about getting a drink, or mating, or defending their turf, but it is not going to think about a vigorous chase to kill and eat. It doesn’t think about tomorrow, or next week — month — or year, never mind generations ahead. It operates on instincts which worked well when focused on the moment, the day.
Is that what we’re limited to? I respect and appreciate all life forms, but even elephants, dolphins, and the great apes, can’t ponder, re-evaluate, learn, and anticipate on anywhere near the level that we can. With a world this filled and stretched, consider substituting one word — they “… can’t ponder, re-evaluate, learn, and anticipate on anywhere near the level that we Should.” (instead of simply ‘can’)
I think we’re up to this; we can do it. We can learn from history. We can reach into the depths of our humanity and grow to go well beyond instinct. Chief Seattle is credited with saying that we ought to consider how our decisions and actions will affect the lives of our descendants seven generations from now. Do you think that is something which we should genuinely aspire to and actively work toward?
We each need to evaluate for ourselves the degree to which we are willing to accept and embrace this from Philosophy Professor Peter Boghossian, and determine how willing we are to apply it to our lives and our politics: “The only way to figure out which claims about the world are likely to be true, and which are likely to be false, is through reason and evidence. There is no other way.”
Hopefully it is by now clear how this all connects to honestly facing and then constructively figuring out, based again on the best evidence and any clear consensus developed by those best informed, how to approach doing things about key challenges in our times. This includes taking the long- and the broad- view of things from economic policies (in a world of rapidly accelerating mechanization including robotics, will we need to re-evaluate what we consider to be “a full-time job”?), to environmental policies and actions. The elephant in the room here is clearly that a very significant number of people who do have the habit of believing what they simply want to believe and of dismissing expertise if they don’t like its consensus, continue to follow that habit when even considering taking a second look at climate change. In part 1 of this instinct, people focus on perceived immediate risks and clearer lines of us vs. them (leading to near complete preoccupation with things like ISIS and foreign-based extremist Islamic terrorism while ignoring domestic homegrown white-male-Christian terrorism). In part 2, people ignore longer-term risks to “others” (including our own descendants). This demands our deliberate efforts to do what we should do in going beyond instinct to engage our human intellects, to deeply consider and to plan how to best move toward numerous aspects of sustainability. (Please resist the temptation to let that too-oft-used word slide off your brain… Do quality surroundings — measured socially, economically, and ecologically — for your descendants and their peers matter, or not?)
So, while I’m not interested in either protecting or attacking any or all religion, I am interested in us honestly evaluating when it has played the role of hurdle, preventing faster progress toward honestly facing evidence, and then effectively problem-solving. I am asking people who feel the need to stay with their faith, please consciously put effort into avoiding the key downsides to such. Resist falling for the habit of dismissing evidence you don’t happen to like, and doubling down on ideas you like even if you don’t have the best evidence and consensus behind them. If you wouldn’t like to live in a theocracy run by Muslims or Hindus or…, don’t try to impose your Christian religion on our broader society. Don’t be remotely quick to follow history’s pattern of jumping on board with a war effort when it should be obvious that all sides, including yours, are again using the notion that “our God is the ‘right’ God,” and then killing over that age-old idea. And don’t presume that a supernatural solution is going to make deliberate and not-always-easy environmental efforts unnecessary.
There are several hurdles to negotiate in even getting started up this hill of more honestly figuring out what is likely true. I’ve lived the majority of my life here in America surrounded by a generally Christian culture, and closely surrounded by many Christian relatives and friends. I’ve also lived though, for a good number of years of my life, surrounded by Hindus, and by Muslims, and had significant exposure to other belief systems. From this life experience I’ve seen that it’s quite natural for people to become well indoctrinated. I’m not labeling the people behind this as evil in any way; I’d call my parents good, loving, and well-intentioned people, and they indoctrinated me into the strong Christianity that pervaded more than three decades of my life. My point here is that we should recognize that since there clearly are cultures with very different starting points for what many use as their primary way of coming to believe that X is true, that the assumption that faith is a reliable and constructive tool for figuring what is likely true and where we stand, itself must be thoughtfully examined.
Inasmuch as this essay will at least initially be read by a primarily American audience, I will address elements of one of the first hurdles we encounter in seeking reasonably thorough and objective ways of figuring out what is true and where to stand — this hurdle is the case of modern American Christianity.
For a little bit here then I will be critiquing certain aspects of how a majority of our modern American rendition of Christianity has come to present their perception of reality. I’m going to proceed with the assumption that most of us would generally agree that internal consistency matters.
On this theme, I submit that at the center of Jesus’ message is this: Live a non-self-centered life (lay down your life; care for the least of these; turn the other cheek; love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you; etc.) which is Less prone to drawing lines which divide “us” vs. “them.” He said “enough already” with Jew vs. Gentile, or any other such junk. It was not rich vs. poor, it was the rich having some responsibilities to care for the poor, and not blow them off in some judgmental way. It is up to us to figure out how to constructively do that, but it certainly didn’t include corporate welfare while we whine about some imperfections (which do need work toward fixing) in individual welfare; and it did include health concerns and therefore care for all, with no objections if that care is somehow subsidized by the broader society. Can you actually imagine Jesus being against subsidized health care? And he added the illustration of the workers who showed up early and those who showed up late to the task getting paid the same. (Obviously that can be taken too literally and would have non-constructive results.) He clearly wasn’t against paying one’s taxes, and wasn’t remotely obsessed with resisting governmental authority, and he had abundant opportunity/excuses to do so and say so if he wanted us to spend our lives focused there. And beyond Jesus’ words, as Christianity evolved, we find the book of Acts clearly on-board with many aspects of socialism. Shouldn’t we ask: Are modern American Christians free to just glibly dismiss all of the above?
There are many non-Christians, not religious at all, who certainly seem to live less self-centered and more other-inclusive lives than many Christians. Can we recognize that much of modern American Christianity promotes sharp lines of “us” vs. “them” without so much as broadly based and deliberate efforts to build bridges to and with other people-groups unless it includes the drive or need to convert them to our “right” religion, and/or exploit their resources and labor?
Can we be more honest with these realities, or must we just persist with the age-old tendency to remake our version of God in our updated image?
Thus I would encourage modern American Christians to — Either: 1. Re-read and reconsider the central messages of Christianity and their applications to national and social policy, OR, 2. Go ahead and just declare that they want to draw any dividing lines they want (racial, sexual, religious, economic, etc.) as sharply as they want, without trying to justify narrow bigotry and prejudice with their religion. At least then we have honest advocacy of clear policy with the cards being laid on the table, the motives being much more transparent.
As is, we have a smoke-screen of mixed motives which may be coincidental for many modern individuals, but aren’t at all accidental when their roots are traced. A useful starting point would be to read “What’s the Matter with Kansas” and “One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America.” Yes, these are more than blog posts, but can we really afford to knowingly and willingly accept our stunted attention spans to the point that reading whole books is asking too much of ourselves?
So, why do I advocate for honesty even if some of that honesty would clearly be ugly? Because we at least reduce the likelihood of being fooled by wolves in sheep’s clothing, and then failing to meet the challenges of our times.
If your faith is irrevocably a central peg in your life, might I suggest that you could do some positives with it. Jesus’ words and the book of Acts are full of the “social gospel”. Why not put time and energy into that?
Finally, whether you identify as a conservative or progressive, don’t feel that your personal and natural reflexes are automatically good or bad, but do be willing to use our human intellect to learn from repeated patterns in history, to analyze our instincts, and to do better than an animal which can’t think about long-term impacts and future generations, let alone thoughtfully plan, using the best of information which we can get our hands on. We can thoughtfully and honestly consider the vital role that a slowly and painfully developed consensus among those best informed on any particular topic can and perhaps should play in helping all of us everyday folks figure out what is most likely true. Then we can better figure out where we should stand, and how we can use that perspective to collectively hire a crew which will make decisions to direct our ship of state away from the most perilous waters. With more ships of states also making farsighted and well informed decisions of direction, the influence on the direction and on the sustainability of civilization on our pale blue dot can only be good.
