The Pope, Pat Robertson, The Dalai Lama and a Nobel scientist walk into a room. Each tells you a story purporting to be the truth. None of the stories agree with the others. Whom do you believe?
You don’t know what the stories are or the facts behind them, but you probably know whom you would be inclined to believe. Social scientists have identified "a tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact… to values that define their cultural identities.” We tend to believe the facts that support our values. If I believe in small government and low taxes, and you tell me that the implication of global warming is that we need to regulate business more and raise taxes, I’m less inclined to believe global warming is factual. If I think that believing in evolution will change my moral stance, I’m not likely to be a big Darwin fan.
Finding the truth is tricky. Our perceptions of it are affected by what our parents believed and where we grew up and our life experiences. If you recommend a book, one person may not like it because its tone doesn’t seem scientific enough. The next person will not like it because Oprah recommended it, and she doesn’t like Oprah. Another person will love the book and find it life changing.
One of our challenges is recognizing that truth depends on context and that there are layers of truth. A mythic story may not be based on historical fact, but it may elucidate an eternal truth. A therapy may be helpful, but not for the reasons its proponents use to support it. A collection of scientific facts may support a theory, but sometimes only until more refined measurements are possible and a new theory is be formed. A philosophical system may attempt to explain the truth, but it is only as good as the premises upon which it rests. One can come up with all sorts of logical nonsense if the starting point isn’t sound.
As we seek truth, we might want to examine our own values and predilections for thinking in certain ways. We should recognize that even we may be vulnerable to self deception.
Given the amount of conflicting information available in the media and on the Internet, a degree of skepticism is warranted. It behooves us to watch out for our own gullibility.
At the same time, we should be wary of too quickly writing off theories and practices other people believe in because they seem too far out of our experience.
What is called for, it seems, is a flexible, balanced stance in which we evaluate facts and information with openness, not too much attachment to our own preconceptions, and wariness of both our own gullibility and of our skepticism.
How do we seek the truth and not get boxed in by our established beliefs?
© 2010 Tom Barrett