Finding Common Truth

 HS #67  2021.2.11

 

Finding Common Truth

 

Did last fall’s election lead to the wrong candidate being inaugurated? Is it safe to take the COVID vaccine? Is there even a pandemic? Is global warming occurring and produced largely from human influence? Is the earth only 6 thousand years old rather than 4.5 billion? 

 

These questions share several things in common: i) there are committed people on both sides of each issue, ii) answers are given with a toggle switch rather than a dial; that is, no middle ground, iii) there is an established position and a sizeable minority opposition. 

 

How do we find truth in such situations?

 

First, there must be agreement that truth exists. With sympathies to Kellyanne Conway, there are no “alternative facts.” Patrick Moynihan, statesman and senator from New York, observed, “You are entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” 

 

President John Adams went a bit deeper: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” 

 

Indeed, that gets to the heart of it. Apparently in Adam’s time as well as ours, people believed alternative facts. Easy to understand. Ever see a coach protesting a ref’s call that was in his favor? We see what we want to see. We believe what we want to believe. 

 

Given that we all have that tendency, how do we determine whether or not we are the one in error? Is it enough that we are in the majority? Is it enough that we are in the counterculture? As President Lincoln said to his cabinet when he found himself outnumbered, “Seven ‘no’ and one ‘aye’, the ayes have it.”  Numbers alone (or lack of them) do not determine the truth. 

 

Can’t we just look at the evidence? That might have been enough for our simple-lived ancestors when the question was, say, whether putting a fish with the planted seed helped the corn grow. Each planter could experiment and determine the truth. 

 

But modern questions rely on the research and experience and expertise of others. Who among us have personally counted ballots or measured the ice at the poles or given vaccines to research volunteers? The tough nut to crack – the real problem to solve – is determining “Who do we trust?” 

 

My own answers:

 

1)    I look at the motivations and passions of the source. Given that we all tend to believe what we want to believe, what sources don’t have a dog in the fight? Of course everyone does to some extent, but a main source for U.S. political news is BBC – at least it’s across the pond. 

2)    I look at the personal history of the source. Have they proved themselves reliable in past accounts? I differentiate between those who don’t give “the whole truth” from those who intentionally give false accounts. There is no “whole truth” to give. Every source will leave out facts that are considered important to others. Likely, the facts left out (intentionally or not) coincide with the source’s own interests. So I check multiple sources. 

3)    I steer clear of sources that combine claims of what “is” with claims of what “should be.” Given that we see what we want to see, this makes the source suspect. 

4)    I give deference to the established position. Statisticians call it the null hypothesis. It is assumed true unless there is a preponderance of evidence against it, as with our courts where innocence is presumed unless/until proven guilty. Why give this advantage? Because that is how I live generally. Every time I open a cereal box, walk into a building, drive on roads amidst traffic, get advice from a professional, or look at a map or a book, I am trusting the establishment. And I’m still alive. Obviously and gladly, the great majority of the time, established truth is correct. So I don’t doubt it without clear reason. 

 

Finally, some introspection. I suspect that believing alternative facts is a problem not with intellect, but with character.  It suggests the lack of fiber to accept and tackle the truth head on. Certainly, for example, it is tempting to ignore global warming (as we ignore our mounting national debt), and leave it for future generations.

 

Instead, we should heed Thomas Paine, “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace; and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.”