Does Anyone Still Care About Objective Truth?

In today’s world it seems like the driving force in any conversation, discussion, not to mention argument is to WIN, not to search for and perhaps even find the TRUTH. 

Facts are out the window.  It is all about NARRATIVE.  That is, what is the story one wants to tell that will serve the teller’s purposes – that purpose most often being to win.  The end seems to always justify the means.  Lies are not prohibited; challenging lies is an impermissible attack. The teller’s story must be believed so the teller can win; questions are not for discussion but rather seen as attacks.

Mature discussions used to also include some element of humility which resulted in actually listening to the assertions of the other side and accepting questions about one’s own beliefs and assertions with a humble dignity and acknowledgement that they might be wrong or open to revision.  Both sides were not only willing to listen to verified facts but were also unwilling to assert as true or factual opinions or allegations that were not verified or that came only from “unidentified sources.”

Not so today.  Humility gets in the way of winning.  It is inconsistent with the assertion that one is absolutely right, no matter what.  No matter what the facts might be or what a full evidentiary examination might prove.  Egos seem unable to take any sort of challenge.  It is all about winning and in order to “win” too many people think that they must be right no matter what and any contrary fact or point of logic must be repelled and denied.

This is at least in part why people believe that they are justified in denying the First Amendment rights of others.  This is at least in part why people assert that information published by news outlets that do not concur with their Left or Right leanings are simply not worth reading, even if they provide verifiable facts on a topic.  This is why when one narrative is repeated by other outlets that have the same leanings that those who accept that narrative believe that it has been verified and not just repeated. 

This is how false allegations take wing.  Opinions become fact.  An unverified statement by an unidentified source becomes truth.  In reality, neither is so, and yet we let such narratives ruin the lives of so many people:  think about the Kavanaugh hearings for example; think about a justified – and there are some – police shooting where the officer is crucified rather than appreciated for doing his or her job; think about FISA warrants to spy on American citizens and on a Presidential candidate that were granted on what have now been proven to be false statements.  These are just a few of the more egregious false narratives that far too many are willing to accept simply because they support the triumph of their own narrative. 

It is all about winning.  But once upon a time it was more about finding an objective truth.

There was an interesting commentary in the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 30 by Tony Woodlief titled “Free Speech Absolutism Killed Free Speech.”  In it he argues that too much free speech has led to the cancel culture.  Essentially his position is that when we have open speech and the full exchange of ideas (which were originally believed by Mill and others to be the way to ferret out the objective TRUTH), that no idea is refutable, and ultimately leads to the belief that no truth exists. 

“When no dogma can finally be put to rest, it becomes easier—almost obligatory—to do whatever we like. Ideas are evaluated, not based on their reasonableness or coherence, but by how much they tickle the ears of the in-crowd. Harder truths become offensive. The only intolerable citizen, in such a regime, is the one whose belief in truth compels him to attack beliefs he believes to be false even if his attacks disturb the equanimity of the establishment. His criticism becomes too hurtful—even a form of “violence.” For the safety of the community, he must be cast out.”

This well describes a reason for such things as free speech being driven from campuses, threats and attacks directed towards those who do not support the favored position, acceptance of unverified facts or opinions and “news,” etc. 

But this reasoning is flawed.  It is not free speech itself that leads to this place of dogma over truth.  Rather it is the current inability or unwillingness of people to use their critical thinking skills – to use reason as well as emotion in assessing the speech that they hear.  As Mr. Woodlief writes, “Mill believed heretics should be heard, not put in charge of classrooms and permitted to create despotic speech codes. Everybody should be allowed to express his views, but that doesn’t require us to empower and elevate people who would afford themselves the right to speak and take it from everybody else.”

When did we decide that we are no longer allowed to question speech put forth if it might be in the least bit upsetting to the mob of public opinion?  I think there are two areas that are in large part responsible for this:  A loss of shared values and a loss of an educational system that teaches us to think.

Both require not just listening, but listening and then holding the ideas and ideologies presented accountable.

As Mr. Woodlief states, “the classroom is not a fiefdom and students are not a teacher’s ideological playthings.”  It is the responsibility of educators to not present one viewpoint alone, but to present several and then help the students to conduct their own inquiry and evaluation into those viewpoints – questioning the adequacy of sources, the completeness and objectivity with which facts are presented, etc.  It is the job of educators to teach students how to assess a variety of informations and then make up their own minds.

Yet too often educators try to instill their beliefs into their students by presenting only their ideology.  Academics and those who hold themselves out to be scholars have an ethical responsibility to promote free and open inquiry as well as practice intellectual honesty themselves.

Combined with the loss of critical thinking in the classroom has come a change in what Americans value.  We have become a “feel good” society.  Everyone must get a trophy; no one should be made to feel uncomfortable -ever; if it makes you feel good, do it; etc.  Questioning someone’s point is seen as an attack, not on the point being argued, but on the person.  We have lost the ability to distinguish that.  We have silenced our reason for our emotions. 

When everyone is right, when everyone expects the trophy, we essentially silence both our humility and our critical thinking ability.  It is not free speech that is the problem, but our inability to listen to that free speech without feeling threatened and without the ability to assess the many ideas we find in the marketplace and hold them accountable.

We have lost the belief in an objective truth; it has been replaced with a belief in individual narrative truth.  When that is the prevailing belief, there will be no assessments of ideologies as part of the search for that objective truth.  Instead, truth will become the fickle assertion of the mob majority and opposing ideas will be silenced, not because the ideas in vogue are not refutable, but because we are afraid to refute them.

Only when, and not until, we relearn the humility of putting a shared search for objective truth above a personal desire to win, only then will we find the civility and tolerance that once existed in this country and be able to use it to overcome the hate and blindness to reason that is destroying us.

Points of View Are Not Facts; We Need Both and We Need to Understand the Difference

Apparently during a meeting at the White House about funding for the wall last Wednesday, the following interchange took place:

Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen: “I reject your facts”

Nielsen to Pelosi: “These aren’t my facts.  These are the facts.”

If people are unwilling to acknowledge, let alone accept given facts, then how can we ever have a discussion, let alone resolve differences or solve important issues?

Unless we wish to discuss apples and oranges as if they were the same thing, we must be willing to accept facts – things that provably exist.  That is not to say that we must have the same opinions of those facts, but we must all begin discussions of issues with an acceptance of those things that simply are.  Then we can express differing opinions about those facts and their significance to the particular issue that we are discussing.  It is during that presentation of differing views that we have the opportunity to learn from those who seem to disagree with us.  It is that sort of discussion that allows differing sides to move forward to a compromise of or solution to their disagreement, a solution that might change for the better facts that exist in the future.

But, if we are unwilling to accept given and provable facts, if, instead of arguing about their significance, we choose to dispute the indisputable, we are unlikely to move forward.  If we dispute pure facts themselves, then the dispute is essentially some version of "I am right and you are wrong" and each side simply tries to convert the other side to their “facts”; when the conversion does not occur, the conversation ends.  There is no solution to such a dispute.

However, if we begin by accepting the provable and certain facts, then we can evaluate those facts from differing viewpoints and perspectives.  We can accept the relevant facts on an issue and also the fact that differing experiences often lead people to interpret facts differently.  That is the beginning of a rational discussion and hopefully a rational resolution to a problem. 

Here’s a quick example.  Let’s say I run a stop sign, and there is no dispute about the location of the stop sign or a nearby tree, that I ran through the stop, and (we are assuming I’m truthful here) that I assert I did not see the sign.  Those are facts.  What we might dispute is whether, given the location of the sign and the tree, I should have seen it, or, whether the city should have placed the stop sign in a more visible location.  Those are interpretations of the basic indisputable fact of the sign’s location.  But if we spend our time disputing where the stop sign was located or if there really was a tree located near it, etc., then we will never get to a resolution of issues such as whether I should pay for damage I caused by running the sign or whether the city should move the sign or trim the tree that may have blocked it.

So, when we discuss immigration, there are certain facts that, while we might not like them, are indisputable.  Things like the numbers of illegals in this country; the numbers crossing our border both legally and illegally, the numbers in custody; the numbers of children; that some are criminals; that some families are separated at the border; that border agents have rescued aliens and that some aliens have died in our custody; that sanctuary cities protect aliens from ICE; that there are a variety of reasons why migrants seek to enter America, both legally and illegally.  These and many other facts can be specifically supported with statistics and other evidence.  Similarly, the laws and their requirements can easily be read.  These are all facts.  If we are going to actually have a productive dialog about immigration, then we must accept the facts that exist – all the facts, whether they further our argument or not -  and discuss their significance to our country in light of varying views and interpretations of those facts.  We can try to understand those views that differ from ours and try to persuade those who hold them to perhaps see some of the facts from our perspective instead. 

But, if we are going to reject those actual facts that don’t support our position, if we are going to turn facts we don’t like into something refutable that belong to the other side of our issue, then any attempts at discussion must go nowhere.  Facts, indisputable evidence, is not something about which we can rationally disagree.  And so statements such as that made by Speaker Pelosi are simply a way of blocking any rational discussion of the immigration issue. 

We can have both facts and points of view on an issue.  Indeed, that is what our democracy relies upon – an acceptance and encouragement of diverse voices on an issue as we move forward to correct problems related to provable facts.  But, we can’t make up the facts.  We can’t choose which facts to accept.  The facts simply are.  It is the picking and choosing of facts to make up a narrative pleasing to one side or another and then an assertion that only that narrative is correct, that creates the impossible animosity that grips our country today.

It is easy to assert that our views are facts.  But, simply, they are not.  And, until people can accept that fact, until they can distinguish the two, there is little hope for resolution to issues and much likelihood of continuing hostility toward, instead of tolerance of, those holding differing views.