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.

Jury Verdicts, Lesson One

I am becoming more and more concerned about the inability of many to respect fairly rendered jury verdicts.  This has implications beyond the decision in any one particular case.

The purpose of trial is to allow all parties to present their evidence and their interpretation of it to an impartial fact finder (either a jury or judge) and allow that fact finder to sort out that evidence, weigh conflicting evidence, assess credibility, etc.  Once the objective fact finder has determined the complete and accurate facts, the relevant law will be applied to those facts and that will result in the verdict.  The law essentially believes that once all sides have presented their evidence, the truth with come out and will prevail.

If one is unhappy with the verdict, it can be appealed or otherwise questioned within the judicial process, but, with very limited exceptions, one cannot appeal the jury’s actual finding of fact.  What one can appeal is that the wrong law was applied, or that the jury, due to evidentiary decisions by the court, did not receive relevant evidence or received evidence that was not relevant but affected the decision.  There are many other legal bases on which one can appeal.  An appellate court will, however, defer to the trial court on the purely factual findings because the fact finder was able to hear and see all the evidence and the witnesses and was therefore in a better position to assess credibility.  That is, the appellate court will not second guess the fact finder on purely factual findings.

This concept, that the one who hears and sees all the evidence and witnesses is also the one best able to determine the facts in a given case, applies to all those outside the role of juror/fact finder, even the parties to the case themselves.  No one but those assigned the role of impartial fact finder in a particular case is in as good a position to determine what to and what not to believe, how to understand facts and circumstances. 

After a verdict is rendered, one who is unhappy with it ought not to try to relitigate those facts in the press or elsewhere in the public arena.  The proper recourse is to file an appeal.   Not only does using the media rather than the courts represent a misunderstanding of our justice system, it also reflects a disrespect for the participants in that system, including the jurors.  It keeps emotions stirred up, not allowing the closure that our objective justice system allows.  It reflects a refusal to respect the objective standard of Truth inherent in our judicial system, and instead supports a Narrative Truth that looks not to evidence but to the story that one would like to believe. 

This narrative rather than objective approach to justice is demonstrated by Oberlin College’s reaction to the recent large damages verdict against it.  In that case, the day after the 2016 election, some Oberlin students were arrested for allegedly shoplifting at a local shop (Gibson’s).  The students were Black and claims of racism immediately arose.  Clear evidence showed that Gibson’s was not racist in either this instance or in the past; the students were charged (in a separate case) with shoplifting based in part on witness testimony and videos,  and they pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, stating that Gibson’s was not racist.  Nonetheless, the College and some of its administration supported student protests against Gibson’s, dropped contracts they had with Gibson’s, and otherwise encouraged negative action and publicity against Gibson’s.  After presentation of evidence a jury awarded actual and punitive damages to Gibson’s, its owners and employees for libel against it by the College itself and an administrator.    

The College now refuses to accept that the jury performed its duty of fairly assessing evidence from both sides and reaching a determination about the facts (in this case that libel resulting in actual damages occurred).  Instead, the College repeatedly states that the evidence did not support the jury’s decision, that the jury decided incorrectly because it did not agree with the College’s interpretation of the facts, or that the jury did not understand the case and its implications.  All of these assertions demean the jury and question its ability to listen to and assess evidence.

The College seems to now want to make the case about student rights and the First Amendment, neither of which were issues at trial.  The case was against the College, not the students, the allegations were for libel, interference with business, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and similar claims.  The question at trial was whether the College and its administrator had indeed acted as alleged and whether Gibson’s was entitled to receive compensation for the damages to it caused by those acts.  The jury found the answer to both questions to be Yes.

Nonetheless, the College, unwilling to accept that decision, now rehashes and presents its case in the media.  The College seems determined to convince the world that it was wrongfully found liable.  Now, there may very well have been some errors made at trial and some may be appealable and even arguably so substantial as to make some part of the verdict reversible or amendable.  But those are questions for the appellate court, not for the court of public opinion.

Oberlin College, through its post-trial behavior, is teaching its students to devalue our judicial system, to devalue objective evidence and objective truth.  It is teaching its students to place the narrative above all, to not accept outcomes of a fair judicial process when they disagree with the result.  Oberlin is teaching the students that it is OK to disrespect a system of fairness and objectivity whenever one simply doesn’t get one’s way.

It may seem insignificant to claim that a verdict one does not like is incorrect - of course one is not happy when they or someone they care about loses a case – but it is actually highly significant and detrimental to our way of life.  A failure to accept fairly rendered verdicts simply because they do not fit one’s narrative is reflective of a disrespect for our laws and our judicial system, both of which are at the core of and essential to our democracy.  When enough people in a society no longer support or conform to the standards of that society, then the society itself is in peril. 

The narrative approach to truth, justice, and even reality by its very nature ignores objective truth and in so doing denies the fair and equal justice that is the ideal to which our justice system, our society, our democracy aspire.  It is more consistent with various forms of government in which individuals have few rights and little voice.  Watching the narrative approach become more and more popular and prevalent is frightening to anyone who loves this country and everything for which it has stood for over 200 years.

Two Realities Tangled Within One Country: The Demise of A Society

Every society has governing principles that maintain order within that society.    These principles establish standards, provide methods for resolving disputes, and protect certain rights.   The specific details of these principles will be based on underlying values that the individuals within that society share or have decided are ones that should be respected and honored.  Without that agreement and respect for the laws and common standards of conduct, lawlessness likely prevails and the society fails. 

This country was founded on values that are primarily Western and Judeo-Christian and that include a value in the individual, in a work-ethic, independence, and respect for others, both like and different.  These values are reflected in laws that protect the individual and which demand from the individual a responsibility for both self and society.  Similar requirements and protections appear in religious law and even in modern western philosophers such as Ayn Rand who recognized a morality that is objective, absolute, and secular and has life as the basis of its value.  Our society does not demand that we all think or act alike or that we hold the same beliefs or pray to the same God, but it does demand that we all respect this shared belief in the value of the individual.

Further, this society has chosen to use objectivity as a standard for judging violations of our governing principles.  This standard of objectivity has been codified within our laws.  Hence, when there is an alleged violation of one of our codified standards, we go through a process designed to make sure that any judgement on that allegation is rendered as fairly as possible.  This includes investigations, demands for untainted evidence, sworn testimony, and substantial proof before punishment or compensation for injury.  It takes place within a judicial structure and not in the court of public opinion.

This objective standard exists because this society has recognized an underlying and important value of objective truth, in part as a way to protect the individual.  This is a truth based on facts and evidence.  While reaching the perfect objective Truth may be an ideal, this society has made it aspirational to come as near as possible to that truth.  We have chosen to seek that truth using tools of the mind – such things as logic and reason.  And, while we also value tempering judgments with compassion and understanding, our legal system, the reflection of our societal values, is based upon facts and objectivity.

This reality has worked well for this country and within it we have been able to evolve and succeed.  All members of the society do not always agree (nor should they) but we have agreed to live within and play by the same core societal standards.

But, now, a critical mass within this country has decided that those standards of behavior do not work for them and that they therefore will play by different rules; rules with which the entire society does not agree.  We have a second reality sharing space with the original reality of this country.

The new reality values a different truth:  Narrative Truth.  This is not evidence or fact based, but outcome based.  It says that one can ignore objectivity if it gets in the way of one’s narrative.  The narrative seeks a goal that has subjectively been determined to be “good” by some number of people. 

In the narrative truth reality, cases, violation of laws and our societal standards are tried not using the objective rational of our judicial processes, but in the court of emotion and public opinion.  This Truth sees little value in accepting decisions based on actual evidence that do not further its proposed narrative.  Rather than accept logical, fair, and final decisions and move on, those valuing Narrative Truth will continue to fight in the hope of remaking the narrative to the result they prefer.

Hence, we saw those of the narrative based persuasion argue that the lack of evidence did not matter when they wanted to find Justice Kavanaugh guilty of sexual abuse while able to ignore actual recorded evidence of sexism or bias by Joe Biden whom they may need for an upcoming narrative.   We see people determine guilt or innocence based on immediate reaction and emotion rather than evidence in occasions of violence including police shootings and arrests.  We have the Democrats refusal to accept the Mueller investigation’s conclusion and indeed, even their refusal to accept the valid results of the 2016 election. We see people ignoring crimes or bad acts when to call someone out on those acts would weaken a narrative. 

The narrative Truth is more concerned with the goals or needs of the narrative than it is with the goals of objectivity in order to protect all members of the society.  This combines with a more general replacing of the respect for life and value of the individual with the value of self and State combined with disregard for individual others.  There is an importance upon self and immediate gratification leading to an acceptance of violence, death, and self-destruction. 

We hear people called liars, we hear the term “fake news” and other epithets about the reality of which we are not a part.  But for members of each reality, their world is indeed right.  Hence, for example, when a narrative that all women must be believed is a core of those who value a Narrative Truth, the value of a person’s innocence without evidence to the contrary is irrelevant.  Their narrative truth that an innocent person can be guilty if a narrative demands it is consistent with their values and principles.  It is right for them, but very wrong for those living in a reality that values objective Truth.

NYC Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza recently gave a presentation about “white supremacy” culture.  A graphic from Carranza’s lesson explained that “objectivity” is a negative concept “because it can lead to the belief that there is an ultimate truth and that alternative viewpoints or emotions are bad.  Teachers were instructed to reject “objectivity,” and “written documentation” along with “perfectionism” as part of the Chancellor’s effort to “dismantle racism.” Carranza identified these values as tools of the “white-supremacy culture.”

Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not.   But objectivity and written documentation have long been valued by the American culture.  Other cultures (and seemingly the Chancellor as well) have other values. 

For another example, a video from a Mosque in Michigan recently reportedly showed the Imam educating students about the role of “wife-beating”:  it should be conducted in a way that does not cause serious pain or any red markings and as a reminder to the woman that she “misbehaved in cases when words (of admonishment) do not make her change her ways.”

This was spoken from a cultural standpoint that accepts this standard of behavior.  The point here is not to judge it right or wrong, but to demonstrate that there are many different value structures.  Each significantly different structure will result in a different set of societal principals.  It underscores the point that all societal rules are subjective and are dependent upon the underlying values, morals, and mores of the particular society.  What is wrong for one may be very right for another. 

For a society to function, the members must accept the core standards of the society.  Without that collective support, a society will ultimately weaken and fail.  When two realities share space, when one tries to supplant the other, things do not go well.  Each will fight, often to the death, for its own survival.

That is very much what is happening today in America: two realities, one country housing two societies with very different guiding principles.  We certainly do not follow one another’s guiding philosophies and mores, despite double speak claiming that we all support the same principles.

Every day we see the Left refuse to accept legal decisions and processes simply because they do not like them.  They weaken our country not only by not supporting its core principles, but also by vocally asserting that those principles and the actions taken under them are both wrong and unjust.  They signal to the world that America is no longer united and that our society is thus less strong and more open to attack.

One cannot have both a culture of life and a culture of death, nor a culture of objective Truth and one of narrative Truth.  They form the basis for two very different societies.  They cannot co-exist.

We whine, complain, try to fix this or that overt symptom, but what we really need to do is honestly accept and face the fact that we are living with two realities fighting for the same space, each trying to destroy the other. 

I would argue that while the Right still favors a Democratic and Capitalist Republic which values the individual, the work ethic, and personal responsibility, that the Left more values the State, the collective, and either a pure Democracy which is simply mob rule, or some form of State sponsored Dictatorship which denies the value of the individual.

So, here we are. There may be some sort of middle ground, but that would require an open, fair, and honest discussion of what is and what is not negotiable within each reality’s value system.  Such a discussion, of course, requires a respect for the other, something that the Left’s philosophy does not seem to include.   Yet, if we cannot find core beliefs and standards to govern our society, then we must accept that we are no longer one country, that reconciliation is not possible, and move forward to face how to deal with that situation.