How Do I Know What I “Know?”

Have you ever played “Telephone?” Of course you have. A bunch of people sit in a circle and the one designated to be first whispers something into the ear of the second. The words are passed on in a similar fashion around the circle and then the result, as recalled by the last, is compared to the original. The differences between the two make for good laughs.

It sounds silly, but that's the way we learn. Or at least the primary way that we learn “facts.” The history books, for example, convey events as learned or remembered and passed on from one generation to another until they get written down in books which are later revised. Even if we assume that the original version of events was true – and it's a dubious assumption (Churchill wrote what many have said in on form or another: “History is written by the victors.”) – it's unlikely that the story which ultimately appears in our books reflects what actually happened.

And there are other problems. Those who write things down usually have an agenda. So they choose to understand what they have learned within the context of that agenda or ideology. Two scientists may interpret particular observations in totally different ways, and the “facts” are the views of the one better publicized. Or, as with Galileo, the “truth” may be subject to the views and agendas of those lacking any expertise in the field being discussed.

What do we know? There are a few ways we learn those things. And all have problems. Even our own observations are subject to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. We've all had the experience of witnessing something far off and recognizing what it is only to find that it is something entirely different when we get closer. And we're also subject to misunderstanding if we lack knowledge of the issue apart from what we experience. What we “know” may not be true.

There are other ways we know but I want to emphasize only one of them. The one that causes me the most discomfort is that we learn and we know what others tell us is the truth. In a way it makes sense, but the obvious problems make belief of others tell us is that may not yield factual information. What we're told by friends – whether on the street, in our homes, at a cocktail party or wherever – may be unsupported opinion, fantasy, or rumor, and lacking veracity. Yet once we have heard it, it's hard to totally forget it. A judge may instruct a jury to disregard something they have heard, but in all likelihood they won't. It may be the opinion of someone we know, or the pronouncement of a major news service. It may be an intended (to fit an agenda) or unintended misstatement. It may be what some call “fake news” or a premature assessment of actual events.

We know what we hear, whether or not it is true. We know what we learn from our parents, political opinions, habits, hygiene, nutrition, “right” and “wrong,” and all the traits that they think will help us in life. And they're usually helpful. Some were learned from their own parents; some are folk facts and remedies, and some are generally accepted truths. (It's interesting that widely separated societies, lacking contact with each other, often have the same truths and “ground rules.” Instinct, intuition? That's for another discussion.)

We know what we learn from religious leaders. What we learn – what we “know” – is ideologically based. Our clergy have an agenda, and their views of the “truth” are often contradictory. But in the right setting and coming from the right authority what we hear will always be remembered as something we know to be true.

The most significant influences, however, and sometimes the worst offenders, are our teachers. They pass on what they have heard from others, flavored by their own agendas and suited to their audiences. So early elementary school students will learn that George Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac River and he never told a lie. Later they'll learn how silly some of the legends are that they learned when young, but they'll never forget them. Later in school they'll be fed oversimplified ideas because that's all they're prepared to understand. And even later they'll be informed of the real stories and the accepted views according to the agendas of their instructors.

That's not to suggest that much of what they learn may not be true – whatever that means – but a lot of it is based on the views of the instructors, who choose the texts to suit their own views and make clear that their ideas are the ones to be remembered – at least if you want to do well on their examinations.

As suggested above (the previous paragraph if you've already forgotten), the choice of textbooks is an important issue, especially in lower grades. Because children will remember all their lives what they read in the books had in elementary and secondary school it's important to choose them carefully. Disputes among parents and teachers about the lessons they want their children to learn – historically, religiously, and politically for example – have affected what publishers put in their books and how they slant it. They're indoctrinating children to “know” the “right” things and, if they want to sell books, the message has to be the one desired.

In the end, however, we can turn to experts on the science of knowledge, to help us know what we know. Of course they learned from what their own teachers said, and sprinkled in their own agendas. So we have to be just as suspicious of their thoughts. They're human just like us and they only know what they “know.”

August 27. 2017