Subscribe to Posts
Subscribe to CommentsIndividual Entry: Skepticism vs. time
« Why do people bother? |
Main
| 30 Days »
If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr.
No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).If you want to know more about me, click here.
July 01, 2005
Thoughts : Skepticism vs. time
I was recently looking at the message boards for the new TV series "30 days" on FX (which, BTW, it quite good – I'll probably post on it later). This week's show was about a Christian (who didn't know a lot about Islam) living as a Muslim for 30 days. What I found quite depressing was the number of "christians" posting on the message board how the show misrepresented Islam, and then going on to make totally unfounded statements about what "Muslims believe". Things like Muslims worship the moon-god, or that the "Koran" teaches that Muslims who are friends with Christians should be killed (neither of which are true – just in case you didn't know that).
Obviously these are "facts" that these people heard from leaders (pastors, preachers, commentators, etc.) that they accepted without challenge and the decided to repeat to the world on a message board. Frankly, the experience left me depressed for the future – the truth is so fragile and lies are so easy to propagate.
It did however get me thinking. I know better because I am a skeptic and spend at least some energy double-checking things I hear to see if they are true. I also maintain that no-one is infallible and therefore not subject to skeptical inquiry. I recently double checked a story my pastor told in a sermon which didn't match what I thought was true. (As it turns out, we both were right – events he described happened much earlier than what I was thinking about).
On the other hand, with finite time, I can't check every fact I hear. There are many things I hear which I at least tentatively accept without verification simply because I don't have the time to check them all. The internet has made things easier – every version of a fact is accessible in moments. The problem then becomes trying to figure out which version of a fact is true. But that's better than having to spend hours finding information and then still having to decide who to believe when there is a conflict.
So, the question then becomes – what facts should a responsible skeptic spend the time to check, and which can they afford to let pass? My personal rules are: don't repeat facts you haven't checked, and don't base important decisions on facts you haven't checked.
Before I teach a lesson, reply to an email, post a blog, etc. I always make sure I am not including some fact that I haven't checked at some point. There has already been one blog post I trashed because I couldn't find enough supporting evidence for a key part of it (I still think it is true; but wasn't satisfied with my ability to prove it); and another I re-wrote because I discovered the story wasn't quite what I had been told at first. I'm sure I'll still make mistakes; but I do try.
Likewise, whenever I go to make an important decision (one that will cost significant money or which will have consequences for a significant amount of time), I ask myself – is there any part of this decision I am basing on something I heard; but never verified?
Still even with those standards, my mind must be filled with facts that I just accepted as-is. The times (thankfully infrequent) when I have corrected myself before teaching something is ample proof of that. If it is depressing to think about the number of falsehoods being blindly passed around the net; how much more depressing it is to think about the number of falsehoods still running around my own head.
Posted by Steven at July 1, 2005 02:36 PM
Comments
At the 'Tute, one course I took talked about truth systems and learning. It showed that, initially, someone or something plays the role of 'parent' with a reliability of 100% and statements are just accepted verbatim from that entity. As exposure to other sources increases, their reliability starts off in one of two ways depending on upbringing - either all start off at 100% or they start off with a percentage that corresponds to known facts and fallacies. That is, statements with 2 fact agreements and 1 fallacy agreement result in a reliability of 67% for any new statement.
I bring this up to say that it is inescapable to have some number of unverified facts in your brain. But you *have* done your own analysis and assigned a believability ratio to the statement based upon the reliabilities of the source. Being more discerning, this is more important to you that the average American who acts little more then a sponge, uncritically absorbing whatever they hear.
But you have no other choice, I think. If each new statement started out with a believability of 0%, then it would hamstring you in daily life. For instance, I assure you this plane is going to fly to SF. You might raise the 0% by seeing other planes fly, by seeing other examples of this model fly, but you'd have to be there days earlier to see this exact plane fly. And you still wouldn't know it would fly *today*. And just as bad, how do you prove to yourself that it really does go to SF?
No. You have to accept unsubstantiated statements on a regular basis. There is no choice. And some of those statements will wind up inhabiting niches of your subconscious and brain and effect other decisions and changes.
Posted by: Roland at July 5, 2005 08:00 AM
