To my mind, our whole modern situation keeps returning to the same question, and it confronts each person individually on multiple occasions. That question could be phrased as 'what is your evidence?'
We seem to require 'evidence' for our beliefs, but we expect that evidence be 'objective' - that evidence is Not derived from what we personally know or can do; but comes to us from outside.
Any evidence that comes from our own efforts is supposed to bepotentially delusional - because tainted by our own subjectivity ('wishful thinking'); but somehow external evidence - provided by 'other people' - is somehow immune from their subjectivity...
Somehow, we don't notice that the problem of subjectivity has not been eliminated by outsourcing judgment; and neither have constraints as the need for honesty and ability.
'Evidence' just-is made by people, and if the people who supply 'evidence' are incompetent or dishonest, then we would be (we are) stupid to take any notice.
Who can we trust to provide us with external evidence that is strong enough to over-ride our own, personally-derived knowledge?
Simply asking the question reveals that we are - all the time - implicitly trusting people whom we would not explicitly trust; we believe people that we do not know, and do not know anything about - yet we trust and believe them more than our own intuition, common sense and personal experience...
It looks as if our world has convinced us only to believe what others tell us, and not even to allow us to choose who the 'others' might be.
Our world tells us that we must Not think for our-selves (because that is merely subjective, delusional, wishful thinking) but Must believe Other People (whose thinking is, somehow, Not subjective, delusional wishful thinking when they are telling us what to believe!); and it defines what kinds of people we must believe.
Our only allowed choice is among the approved people and groups.
The way out of this hall-of-mirrors is fully, and consciously, to acknowledge that all evidence ultimately depends upon our-selves - on who we chose to trust.
We can either make this decision for ourselves - or allow the decision to be made for us, by... well, by whoever happens to be dominant in our environment.
And that is what keeps people compliant, and what stops people thinking for (and from) them-selves - fear of whoever happens to be dominant.
To think for oneself entails disbelieving and defying whoever-is-dominant. And that is always a risk; one way or another.
One might suppose that 'thinking is free' - that what is 'inside our heads' is private and safe - yet that is not how our minds work. In practice we all believe (we 'know') that our thinking is not private, that other-people (including whoever-is-dominant) know what we are thinking...
Even though modern materialism denies that this 'mind-reading' is really possible; something in us knows that thoughts make a difference; and we are therefore afraid to have defiant and disobedient thoughts.
We fear that our disbelieving and defying thoughts may be used as evidence against us... And we are right!
Thus we (guiltily) try to control our own thinking - as well as behaviour.
And thus we are captured by the system - afraid even to acknowledge our situation, and the absurdity - the incoherence - of what goes on every-day as 'normal'!
But the way-out is - and we know this too! - perfectly simple. Simple but risky.
Therefore it is cowardice that is the problem, not ignorance, nor weakness.
Because thought is Not private, thought Is effectual...
Therefore Thinking Makes A Difference.
And - given that we could think for-ourselves, if we chose - that is the most defiant and disobedient 'thought' of all...
To my mind, our whole modern situation keeps returning to the same question, and it confronts each person individually on multiple occasions. That question could be phrased as 'what is your evidence?'
ReplyDeleteWe seem to require 'evidence' for our beliefs, but we expect that evidence be 'objective' - that evidence is Not derived from what we personally know or can do; but comes to us from outside.
Any evidence that comes from our own efforts is supposed to be potentially delusional - because tainted by our own subjectivity ('wishful thinking'); but somehow external evidence - provided by 'other people' - is somehow immune from their subjectivity…
- Bruce Charlton
Empirical evidence is the gold standard because it can be put to the test in a consistent way. If the results differ then it points a problem. The problem may be an error of process, tainted initial conditions, or an error in the hypothesis under test. And in the case of extreme sensitivity with an inability to isolate effectively there are limits. In something like physics, many theories produce very accurate and repeatable results. (e.g. Double slit experiment, acceleration due to gravity et cetera.) In tests of complex compounds in their consistent ability to treat illnesses without dire contraindications the matter is much more fraught.
In a more general sense, where I don’t have specialized knowledge, the question becomes what is a source worthy of trust, and how much doubt should I entertain to ensure that what I am trusting is worthy of that trust. If it is something like flying on a commercial jet, then I can only really trust that the various processes and safeguards work - virtually without exception - and where failures are uncovered that measures are taken to address the failures promptly and effectively. (It is to mind rather shameful that in the recent 737 Max failures we had to await a second catastrophic event for it to be taken seriously. Even so, it is being treated seriously now, and the matter may cause changes in the aircraft certification process as well as remedies with regard to the particular model of aircraft.)
But what about evidence for human belief? This now moves out of the realm of what is objective evidence. People are capable of believing some of the most incredible things because to do so is personally valuable or meaningful, and is socially valuable and meaningful. Law and currency each works because we have collectively believe in them. When we lose faith in law or currency, the outcomes are distinctly poor, and yet both are symbolic forms without any physical correlate. Culture is fluid, but it has a viscosity that when slow and thick allows for coherence at the cost of being slow to adapt, and when it is fast and thin allows for adaptive change at the loss of coherence. Today, culture is very much of the latter variety, and while that can provide tremendous stimulation and excitement, it comes at a cost of high anxiety and loss of identity. Since people crave a level of certainty and security it tends to make culture more viscous - opposing the various forces that are acting to make culture less viscous. The sense of loss of control due to a morphology of meaning indicates to me that there is a desire to increase viscosity, but there is a lack of knowing how to do this without the privileges granted through participating in modernity being lost.
That is the struggle in a nutshell, and it is the reason that there is so much strife between those who want to dig in, and those who are running forward without regard to the good things provided by a more viscous culture.
And lastly there are those who want to just sow chaos to realise opportunity for themselves - come what may. (Those one’s need to meet “Madame de la dent longue” in the town square.)