Truth

There is a group of social scientists who maintain that the human mind is incapable of achieving objectivity. They contend that everybody who tried was terminally constrained by their cultural ecosystem. Nobody is able to rise above their own prejudices (except, of course, these wise critics).

I would assert that this theory is bunk. It is true that objectivity is hard to come by. We all look at the world around us with a set of lenses–genetic, cultural, gleaned from experience and just plain quirky. But I would assert that we can get to objective reality, or somewhere close, if we work at it.

The easiest access is in the physical sciences. Not that scientists are not just as prone to bias as anybody else. They all have political and social views that color their efforts. One might even assert that science is a bit like a religion in some ways. In hypothesis generation, editorial decisions, grant seeking and giving, bias can creep in. There are many instances throughout history of the so-called scientific consensus being dead wrong. My favorite example is the geologist who first proposed the theory of plate tectonics. That theory was widely scorned and ignored, mostly because the geologist was a woman. However, the scientific method usually and eventually gets past the filters because it is able to test hypotheses against physical facts in a rigorously controlled fashion. Variables can be independently manipulated. Eventually, we find out that a cannon ball dropped from the tower in Pisa goes down every time, never up; and at the approximately the same speed every time.

That level of objectivity is almost impossible to find in the social sciences–economics, sociology, psychology, political science. We are unable to conduct truly controlled experiments on human beings.

However, we can come a lot closer through dialogue. Applying divergent viewpoints, and testing them with logic, will eventually yield something that resembles objective truth.

First, we have to be willing to listen to viewpoints that diverge from our own. One of my favorite examples was an opinion I formed about the job market during the depths of the recent recession. I heard lots of ads for long haul truck drivers. That’ll happen if you listen to country music stations and right wing talk shows. My instant reaction was that there were good jobs on offer and not filled because of the stupid idea of having 99 weeks of unemployment insurance on offer. People would rather sit on their ass and live off the taxpayer than take a job. I mentioned this considered opinion to a left wing friend of mine, who informed me that the truck owners could not get insurance coverage for their rigs unless drivers had 3 years of verifiable big rig experience. They were all fighting over the same pool of qualified drivers. One huffy assumption immediately bit the dust. Another example concerns gay marriage. My initial response to the campaign was that civil union was appropriate to address some inequities, but that marriage of a man and woman had religious significance that need not be assaulted. Then, I read a column (by David Brooks, if my fading recollection serves) asserting that no one pretending to hue to conservative principals should oppose the notion that two people were prepared to make a life long commitment to each other. Changed my mind on the spot.

Second, we have to be willing to confront tribalism and righteous indignation. There is research indicating that many people do not form policy opinions and choose a political party based on congruence with their positions, but pick a political tribe and conform their positions to its agenda. Shameful. Often, politicians get votes because they are more telegenic. We are derelict in our duties as citizens in that event. Policy positions that should determine candidate selection. We also need to remember that a political or economic opinion is just that–an opinion. It may be supported by some evidence, but not controlled experimentation. It should always be open to modification based on new information. Too much of our current dialogue is conducted by people who are 100% sure they are 100% right, and they are damn righteous about it. Some humility is in order. The other team isn’t evil; they just have a different view. The only way to change that view is civil dialogue. Righteous screaming won’t change many minds.

Finally, and most important of all, is restoration for respect for the right of free speech. Until and unless there is a constitutional amendment, every American citizen is guaranteed a right to express any opinion they have in any medium they can find. That right is at the very core of who we are as a nation. According to the Supreme Court, you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and you can’t advocate the violent overthrow of the government. Other than that, have at it. That includes weird speech, hateful speech, KKK speech, skinhead speech, anarchist speech and politically incorrect speech. Any demonstration that is peaceful should be allowed. It is certainly appropriate to disarm protesters; it is not appropriate to ban a demonstration because you think it might be violent. Prevent the violence; not the speech. A word to Berkeley–just because the thugs proclaimed views you sympathize with, looting is looting, and should be prosecuted. A word to the ACLU–you used to defend everybody’s free speech rights; go back to that stance.

Aside from the fact that it is a basic right, free speech has an even deeper purpose. The search for objective truth means that we look for kernels of truth in every viewpoint. Quite often, it is the lonely crank who moves us away from a mass delusion. Remember that virtually every human race once believed that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.