Smoke and Mirrors - The Elusive Truth
From the moment we are born we begin to learn and some would contend that the learning process even begins while still in the womb. One of the most powerful methods of learning is by observation and imitation. As children we imitate our parents and others as we soak in the information around us and as adults this behavior continues.
One of the most important factors in this process is trust. Since information comes before learning and wisdom we must trust the role models in our life to teach us the right things, such as how to discern truth. All too often this breaks down and people learn to do bad as often as they learn to do good. So if the instruction is faulty, where do we turn to find truth?
One of the defining traits of humans once we come of age is the ability to think rationally. Even if our upbringing was less than perfect, once we mature we have the ability to direct our life and values based on rational thought processes should we choose to do so. We do not forever remain a prisoner of a flawed learning process unless we wish it to be so.
But who do we turn to for inspiration? Who can tell us the unvarnished truth about life, the universe and everything?
I was a sponge for information and couldn't seem to get enough knowledge. But what is true and what is biased? These days with the exponential growth of knowledge we tend to trust specialists in their respective fields to impart to us their informed opinion based on facts and sound reasoning. Science has a plethora of disciplines and has become our defacto standard in the matter of what is accurate and what is not. As human populations have grown, the need for sound government for the benefit of the entire society has become an unchallenged necessity. We entrust our governments with the sound management of our societies and the guarantee of our freedoms and rights, but do we really trust them? These and many other influences in our lives serve to shape what we believe to be true whether we realize it or not.
These examples and many others lead me to believe that despite lofty aims of impartiality, the underpinning of empirical data and scientific method, the efforts and practice of the collective scientific disciplines have not resulted in the emergence of anything close to a “true” understanding of the natural world. Further, it would seem to me that the conventionally accepted wisdom fed to an unsuspecting public cannot be taken at face value and is not worthy of that faith of certainty or authority with which it is often received. More than a century ago, T.C. Chamberlain10 highlighted a preferred method of scientific inquiry and postulation that if adopted would help to avoid bias. In his article entitled The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses, he defined the problematic nature of “The Ruling Theory” method that unfortunately has proven to be most prominent in most branches of science, stifling creativity and blocking genuine progress towards truth. How can anyone accept the truth of assertions from professional disciplines systemically troubled by bias in ways ensuring that truth becomes the casualty, slain by the demons of pride, greed, anger, and other such detractors?
One of the most important factors in this process is trust. Since information comes before learning and wisdom we must trust the role models in our life to teach us the right things, such as how to discern truth. All too often this breaks down and people learn to do bad as often as they learn to do good. So if the instruction is faulty, where do we turn to find truth?
One of the defining traits of humans once we come of age is the ability to think rationally. Even if our upbringing was less than perfect, once we mature we have the ability to direct our life and values based on rational thought processes should we choose to do so. We do not forever remain a prisoner of a flawed learning process unless we wish it to be so.
But who do we turn to for inspiration? Who can tell us the unvarnished truth about life, the universe and everything?
A Matter of Influence
In this technological age we have access to more information than any generation before us, but can we trust what we are told? I still recall that as a young man I had a naive faith in the things I read in science texts and medical books. The news on television was always presented objectively to my mind and never questioned - after all why would they lie to me? It wouldn't be the news if it wasn't entirely true would it? This also led to a faith in people in positions of authority. To my mind they were placed in or elected to these positions for the public good and they wouldn't be there if they had the wrong motives or didn't have the qualifications to do a good job. With a such a trusting attitude, I fell hard and often.I was a sponge for information and couldn't seem to get enough knowledge. But what is true and what is biased? These days with the exponential growth of knowledge we tend to trust specialists in their respective fields to impart to us their informed opinion based on facts and sound reasoning. Science has a plethora of disciplines and has become our defacto standard in the matter of what is accurate and what is not. As human populations have grown, the need for sound government for the benefit of the entire society has become an unchallenged necessity. We entrust our governments with the sound management of our societies and the guarantee of our freedoms and rights, but do we really trust them? These and many other influences in our lives serve to shape what we believe to be true whether we realize it or not.
During a recent period of reflection, as I recalled some of the highs
and lows I have experienced in my life, I became aware of the general process
of awakening that I went through where childhood myths and preconceptions were
dispelled in various ways to be replaced with hard truths based upon experience
and so-called learning. In a way it could be called the tragic death of innocence for
there seems to be something pure and innocent in the trust and joyfulness of
our youth. There were times however, where this process presented serious
challenges to hope and faith as I fought to determine experientially who to
trust and how to answer the question, ”Is there such a thing as a moral absolute?”
To put it another way, is there such a thing as a universal or absolute truth
or is truth relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances?
One could debate this question from scientific, religious, or philosophical
perspectives but it seems that none of these disciplines can even attempt to answer the
question without invariably straying into the sphere of others. Even more importantly we must ask ourselves if we can trust the assertions of experts in these fields? Is all as it should be in the lofty halls of academia? While space prevents a detailed discussion, I would like to share some perspectives.
The Philosopher
It would seem that attempts to understand the nature of truth have occupied the thoughts of philosophers of all ages and cultures. From Siddhartha Gautama and the "Theory of Two Truths" to Aristotle, Heraclitus and Chinese neo-Confusion thought, there has been a battle between absolute and relativistic understandings of truth. Those who argue for absolute truth say that some beliefs are true regardless of place, time, or perspective, while those who argue for relative truth say human truth is never absolute, but varies by perspective and degree.
A big-picture view of the behavior of people might suggest that the philosophical idea of moral relativism1 may have some basis since this appears to be how the world works. Moral standards are often shaped by cultural norms and can be different between different cultures, societies, communities and religions. It would also appear that this situation is far from ideal. The variation or change of moral standards in response to cultural and circumstantial stimuli (such as war/conflict) seems to be the rule rather than the exception. After thousands of years of collective human endeavour one might even be forgiven for questioning mankind’s capability to self-determine acceptable standards of behaviour.
A big-picture view of the behavior of people might suggest that the philosophical idea of moral relativism1 may have some basis since this appears to be how the world works. Moral standards are often shaped by cultural norms and can be different between different cultures, societies, communities and religions. It would also appear that this situation is far from ideal. The variation or change of moral standards in response to cultural and circumstantial stimuli (such as war/conflict) seems to be the rule rather than the exception. After thousands of years of collective human endeavour one might even be forgiven for questioning mankind’s capability to self-determine acceptable standards of behaviour.
If, as we are told2, man is nothing more than an
evolutionary by-product whose sole purpose is to pass on our DNA to our progeny
and the question “Is this the way it was meant to be?”, is simply irrelevant,
why is it that our collective historical experience is one of repetitious
searching for the perfect moral environment? Why is it that humanity invariably
seeks out that which is good, seems to be instinctually tuned to the existence
of a metaphysical realm and at the same time commits acts that are so inhumane
as to be unquestionably in opposition of these goals?
While philosophy seeks to explain this conflict and understand the nature and source of truth, time passes and no agreement is reached. I am still waiting
for a purely philosophical answer that makes sense.
The Scientist
So does science provide the answers? Here again I find no agreement. There are many definitions for science that run along the lines of the following quotation."Science is the concerted effort by very real human beings to understand the history of the natural world and how the natural world works. Observable physical evidence, either from observations of nature or from experiments that try to simulate nature, is the basis of that understanding. The results of, and inferences from, those observations and experiments become scientific knowledge only after publication, and the point of publication is to change previous ideas. Thus theories, the large-scale concepts that are based on huge amounts of data and try to explain and predict large bodies of phenomena, may be powerful ideas, but they are constantly subject to revision or even rejection as new knowledge emerges. The result is that scientific knowledge is constantly changing but hopefully proceeding toward a more correct view of the world."3
People often talk in terms of science proving the truth of things but
how is that possible when by definition science is a method or methodology, the
conclusions of which are subject to change by the next set of observations or
experimental data? Thus far science has failed to provide the required
observations or data to authoritatively settle the ultimate questions of the
origin of our reality (life, the earth, space) and by definition it never will.
Who will be able to determine when we have finally reached an accurate
understanding of our world? What is worse is the realization that various
professional fields of study are obstructed from within to such an extent that
some voices are now asserting the reality of scientific bias. Medical researchers have
long been accused of bias in studies funded by pharmaceutical corporations;
however, more recent research seems to show that the bias runs deeper than
first thought. Rather than being explained by external factors such as
deliberate misconduct, funding constraints and political interference, etc.,
some research began to show a systemic trend “towards the pervasive over-selection and over-reporting of false positive
results.”4
Issues of bias in all its forms are not just American5 or
European problems. Brian Martin documents numerous cases of intellectual
suppression occurring within the Australian academic and scientific community6.
The Guardian recently ran an article7 discussing the furore
surrounding the appointment of sceptical environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg to
establish an Australian Consensus Centre with AUD$4 million of government
funding to advise on the best way to tackle the world’s development challenges.
The issue is inflamed by the fact that Dr Lomborg often found himself on the
opposite side of the argument from the currently accepted position regarding
the causes of global warming and has asserted that world poverty is a more
important issue. He has been subject to personal attacks, political tirades and
the University of Western Australia has pulled out of its deal with him. Some
of the muck raking has come from Amanda McKenzie, the CEO of the Climate
Council, which lost its funding in last year's budget. If it was simply a
political disagreement over the proper distribution of funds the issue of his
position regarding climate change would not enter into the discussion, however,
statements like the following provide insight that academic bias and censure
has a part to play.
“I would rather see taxpayer dollars go to the Bureau of Meteorology or the CSIRO that has really authoritative science on climate change, rather than a snake oil salesman like Bjorn Lomborg."7
One of my favourite topics of study is Archaeology and it is also no
stranger to controversy. One of the touchy subjects of the last century has been
the growing attacks upon the traditional Egypt-centric chronology of the Middle
East and surrounding nations. The most notorious attempt of this period to
highlight problems with the current dating framework for history prior to
approximately 700BC was made by Immanuel Velikovsky8. While
Velikovsky did make mistakes, his efforts were commendable, yet as punishment
for daring to challenge the status quo across multiple disciplines, he will
forever be considered an intellectual pariah. What he did show, however, was that
there were cracks in the chronological edifice. Interestingly, Sir Isaac Newton
could also be considered a chronological revisionist9 of the more
radical sort, suggesting compression of the history of the ancient world by hundreds
of years. Nevertheless, post-Velikovsky, chronological study has given rise to
a number of attempts to revise the Chronology of the ancient Near East to
varying degrees, such as those by Courville, Rohl, James, Bimson, etc.
One of the most interesting aspects of all this is the degree of impact
that Velikovsky’s challenge had upon the scientific community. So great was the
disturbance that it seems reasonable to conclude that despite claims to the
contrary, scientists have once again betrayed a deep-seated resistance to new
ideas. If it was simply that Velikovsky was wrong, he could have been easily
refuted through the normal scholarly mechanisms and allowed to pass quietly
into obscurity as has happened to so many others. This was hardly the case.
The Government
Democracy. The much lauded process of "government of the people, by the people, for the people"11 has become the trademark of western and European "civilized" nations. But is it really all it is purported to be and does it even in fact exist? I found Tim Dunlop's opinion piece12 to be most illuminating in its analysis of the commonwealth form of democracy under the Westminster system such as we have here in Australia. One can't help but agree that the party system, voting system and media apparatus have let us down to such a degree that democracy has become a fond memory of a once-sought grand ideal. Now it is more of a competition to see which one of two major parties will be elected through a voting process designed to ensure no minor parties ever get a foothold. The tool of choice for this competition is expression through media bombardment.So if democratic governments no longer function as intended, what is their purpose? To gain some measure of perspective one must step back from the internal details and look at a much larger picture. Since the world is interconnected politically and economically on an unprecedented level, one should also look at the interactions between nations and the actions of non-democratic governments. For democratic governments, start by asking some basic questions:
- Has the government acted in the best interests of the people or does it often make decisions that are not supported by a majority of voters?
- Is distribution of benefits and services equitable or is it biased to benefit one socioeconomic sector more than another?
- Does the government act ethically?
- Is it open about its actions or is it known to keep information from the public?
- Is there any real difference between the policies of each political party or is it evident that each successive government follows the same general direction in regard to policy?
There are many more questions that should follow but these would be a good start. The fact of the matter is that trust in the government has fallen to record lows13 . More telling is that they only seem to care if it is likely to effect their election chances.
These days it is the world's worst kept secret that the media is controlled to an exceptional degree by intellectual power brokers, some of which are in government. While we are told that the media is respectable and possessed of unparalleled integrity, focused entirely on bringing the truth to light for the benefit of all, the truth is that is had been propagandized. You can no longer take what the politicians say at face value and neither can you trust what is reported in the media. As Chomsky has demonstrated, propaganda terms in the media do not always mean what they seem at face value14. I call this the language of deceit and it has a vital purpose; control of the population15. So our governments, rather than working for the people are now working to control the people. While I'm tempted to follow this trail further down the rabbit hole, I think it is sufficiently explored at this point to demonstrate that we should not look to our governments for truth.
Belief and Religion
So having searched in vain for a human discipline that can shed light on the question of truth and the existence of moral absolutes, we turn to issues of faith and belief. The aforementioned scientific disciplines have their purpose but are limited due to the lack of an absolute authority against which to be measured. Just as in areas of governance there is no demonstrated abstinence from human vices that subsequently obscure the path and line it with brambles. Similarly with matters of religion, the subject matter is often muddied by human intervention and misdeeds. Indian religions emphasize the possibility of man's ascendancy by his own efforts while Chinese belief is a potent mix of the mystical, unknowable heavenly realm, Confucian moralism and dualism. We have worship of nature, animals, ancestors and rulers.
To make sense of it, I believe one must put it to the tests so providentially provided for us by Philosophy and Science. Once this is done, I believe that only one system of belief has answers I can trust. The belief in God as portrayed in the Judaeo-Christian tradition has stood the test of time. As a Christian, I find that not only does it provide an answer to the question ”Is there such a thing as a moral absolute?”, but it also provides a framework through which science, philosophy and faith might be fused into a coherent whole.
The problem is that unlike philosophy and science, the recognition that there might actually be a source of ultimate truth and moral authority is followed by the realization of obligation to that source. Herein lies the first and final dilemma of mankind - we wish to be masters of our own destiny. If there is an ultimate source of truth and moral authority then we are merely unruly children and masters of nothing, not even ourselves. So if the Judaeo-Christian tradition has stood the test of over 4000 years and mankind still searches for truth, are we really in fact searching for truth of just better ways to obscure it, replace it and avoid its consequences?
References
- “We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA…It is every living object's sole reason for living…that the purpose of all life is to pass on their DNA means that all living things are descended from a long line of successful ancestors…which can best be understood as fulfilling a purpose of propagating DNA…There is no purpose other than that." (Nick Pollard talks to Dr. Richard Dawkins, interviewed February 28th, 1995 published in Third Way in the April 1995 edition [vol 18 no. 3])
- http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15784/15784-h/15784-h.htm THE CHRONOLOGY OF ANCIENT KINGDOMS AMENDED, Sir Isaac Newton.
- The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses, T.C. Chamberlain, Journal of Geology, 1897.
- http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm
- http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-17/dunlop-three-things-must-change-for-a-healthier-democracy/5820612
- http://www.edelman.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-Edelman-Trust-Australia-Results.pdf
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmoXze-Higc - Propaganda terms in the media - Noam Chomsky
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoNOQ7LMR8c - Noam Chomsky Propaganda And Control Of The Public Mind
No comments:
Post a Comment