What I Think/Know/Believe

[Note: I'll use footnotes today because some of what I have to say will be better if it doesn't interrupt the rest of the text, which may be somewhat longer than usual.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I don't know everything. It hurts me to say so, but it's the truth.ⁱ No one does. It used to be easier – when there was less to knowⁱⁱ

Despite their exalted role in role in democratic theory, reporters were scarcely better than average citizens at mastering the torrent of information in the modern world.ⁱⁱⁱ

So what you “know” is what other people think – or at least what they tell you – what they want you to think. That is their “truth.”^iv And that's why I'm suspicious of “knowledge.” My view is the equal of theirs. And it's hard to know from the media what is fact and what is “alternative fact.”

According to Winston Churchill,^v

History is written by the victors.

So we can't even trust what the experts tell us is the past. And from time to time anthropologists and archaeologists also change their opinions. Ideally the new views are more accurate than the old, but who “knows?”

One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary.

Stephen Hawking speaks for science when he tells us^vi that the universe could have arisen spontaneously based on the laws of physics. And he has the formulas and the data to prove it. But it is less clear what the origin of those laws of physics is. So it is uncertain if all his formulas prove what he says. Copernicus considered the sun the center of the universe. Einstein exposed Newton's error in gravitational theory. Science makes mistakes. Today's established science is what scientists tell us it is, although later it may be disproven or changed.

And that brings me to the actual subject of this note – “knowledge” and belief. When I was brought up there wasn't much talk in my family about religion. My religious training consisted of a few hours a week, divided into too many sections to make a real understanding of any of them likely. I'll get to that. However it's the basis of ideas of belief and knowledge.

All I Really Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten.^vii It's a bit of an oversimplification, however it was a bestseller. Most of what I really need to know I learned from my “training wheels” – my parents – who gave me the gift of language and my earliest instruction in how to think. It was a gift that perhaps I have repaid by passing it on to my children. Childhood learning never leaves us.

There was one vital lesson, however, that I learned in my childhood from a science teacher. I'm not sure which one, but the good teacher presented me with a bit of wisdom that has always been with me. It's not deep. At least on it's surface. Yet it's the basis for all I know [sic – no quotation marks] about life. The lesson was that everything comes from something. It's an explanation of the aphorism “There's no such thing as a free lunch.”

The lesson – everything comes from something – is obvious. Nothing you didn't know already. Yet it is, in a way, the pillar on which the world stands. It was one of the original foundations of philosophy. Where did we come from? We're still arguing about it today because we don't know. The question formed the basis for most religions as well. Where did we come from? Evolution^viii is a fine concept but it's only the description of a tool, not of the craftsman.

For those who believe in what Hawking says, we came about spontaneously as a result of the random formation of the universe, the ultimate development of our solar system,^ix and evolution. I say “believe” because no one was around at the time of Creation to attest to what happened. What they consider to have been proved may have various formulas and equations to back it up, but no first-hand evidence.^x

“Proved.” What constitutes proof? For many, the equations of those we consider smarter than ourselves is all it takes. For others it is what is observable and verifiable.^xi For still others it is the appearance of the idea in a holy book. Many consider the last option mentioned as “superstition,” and based on “belief” rather than “knowledge.” But even those words are imprecise, because, as was mentioned, “knowledge” is sometimes incorrect and in need of correction, and “belief” is usually said to be confined to the acceptance of religious doctrines. But perhaps these ideas should be examined.

What do we know? Nothing really. We accept what we are told. We've learned from our parents and teachers, and their words were long ago accepted as truths that we don't question. We even judge future teachings on the basis of what they've taught us. Moreover the greatest of scientists, those who “stand on the shoulders” of predecessors, are relying on what their antecedents have said. And it may be wrong or incomplete. But it's the benchmark by which they judge everything else. How reliable is that? And how are the results of such teachings to be evaluated? Even when what an equation predicts is found to be reproducible, it isn't always clear if this is because it describes a tool and not what we know and understand to be a creative principle.

In a way, “belief” is the same. We accept what we are told because our teachers assert that it is the word of G-d. What is written, however, was written by humans and is subject to error or dispute. Yet belief is often accepted as settled knowledge and not to be contradicted.^xii They have been told something and they consider it fact. They believe they were “told” by G-d, and the words are more than belief – they constitute knowledge. And they expect the same belief of us.

To evaluate such a view it is important that we return to an earlier question: can you get something from nothing? And, as I mentioned, that also raises theological issues, for example, is there a G-d? It's hard to argue with the idea that belief and knowledge, as well as the concepts of proof, knowledge and, for that matter, right and wrong, are inextricably related to that question. And, having been taught while I was young that you can't get something from nothing, I'm inclined toward a Divine origin of the universe and life. When I consider Hawking's arguments, the first thoughts I have are questions: where did the laws of physics come from? Did they precede the origin the universe? Who decreed them? After all, you can't get something from nothing.

But Hawking apparently believes they were just there. Eternal truths? Are they the Divine creators? Even if that is the case, there is some unexplainable force that is necessary to account for creation. In this case it would be laws, but most people call that force “G-d,” although the name is not the point. More important is the concept. And even more important is the idea that what we “know” is really what we believe.

If the same question were asked of me – specifically where did G-d come from – the only answer I could give is that I don't know. I wasn't around at that time.^xiii The response to unanswered scientific inquiries is “I don't know yet,” with the implication that humans will some day be able to answer all questions. I don't believe that will be true of our origin. I don't think wise men will – reporters, historians, or scientists – have all the answers. I think we'll forever have to believe, not know.

July 6, 2017

i As I'll explain later, I don't know what the “truth” is.

ii Same thing. I don't accept the usual definition of “know.”

iii That's David Greenberg in his book “Republic of Spin” summarizing a view of Walter Lippmann early in the twentieth century. Unfortunately, although the technique of news gathering is much more advanced now – members of the media are more interested in expressing their own opinions (“truth”), and those of the owners of the organs for which they work than in providing relevant facts and context. It's called “advocacy journalism.” What has resulted is that there is little in today's press that is a straightforward and objective delineation of the facts; rather articles are intended to convince you to take a particular point of view.

iv Because they're certain that what they think is the “truth,” that's what they want you to think. Anyone with a contrary opinion is wrong, and possibly evil, trying to convince you of a false set of facts. Today we call such reporting “spin.” It's an activity primarily of advertising and public relations, and mainly on behalf of politicians, political views, and other products. Thus “truth” is often no more than opinion with an objective of swaying the listener.

v Or, at least, attributed to him. There were others, including George Orwell and Walter Benjamin, who made similar observations. At best, it's origin is uncertain.

vi In The Grand Design.

vii By Robert Fulghum. It was first published in 1986.

viii “Darwinism”

ix There is a free lunch.

x Atheists, like everyone else, are believers. Their religion, however, is science.

xi A newborn baby is observable and verifiable, but is it proof of a Creator or the random functioning of a randomly originated universe? Is a scientific formula any more convincing than a baby's formula?

xii “God Said It; I Believe It; and That Settles It!” For those who subscribe to that formulation, what they believe, they “know.” It's established fact.

xiii As G-d says in Job: “Where were you when I founded the earth?” And it goes on to list phenomena which I never observed. Indeed, who am I?

History

“History is bunk.” (Henry Ford)

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (George Santayana)

And they're both right.

History is an indispensable part of our education but it's sometimes difficult to know what is true.

Let me add another perspective. “History is written by the victors.” Winston Churchill is credited with that thought, although we all know it to be true. We see it every day in the media. The term we use currently is “spin,” and it reflects the way that some want others to “understand” and remember the facts. That's what the victors in battle did. And later generations passed on their views to us as an accurate reflection of what had happened. Sometimes it was true, but not always.

In his “Life of George Washington,” Pastor Mason Weems taught us many myths about our first president – myths that have come to be accepted as reflecting the character of George Washington, even if the “facts” may have been manufactured. Like the work of Thomas Bowdler, Weems goal was to teach morality, but it's been passed down as history.

The Russians made an art of spin. They rewrote history. But they had the power to do so. They could change the text of textbooks and present it to several generations as facts which were eventually accepted. George Orwell, in 1984, fictionalized that act, but his meaning was clear. If we don't know what tyrannies can do, and prevent them, they will deceive us again and again.

And despots, given the opportunity (and if not they'll take it anyway), will use twisted history to justify their own acts. Hitler blamed the Jews for undermining German war efforts and he set out to destroy them both before, and during, the war that he precipitated. History can be used as an excuse for evil.

But it can also be used positively, if that is the aim of those who cite it – even if the “facts” it uses are wrong. The Jewish holiday of Tisha B'Av – a single date – commemorates disastrous events that occurred on different dates so as to obviate the need for additional fast days. No attempt is made to alter the other details of the events – only the days. The source of information is the Bible, admittedly written before factuality became an important part of history, although many accept its words at face value as the words of G-d.

Also problematic as history are the Gospels, written after Jesus's death by people who never met him. They were based on stories circulating at the time and have been accepted as accurate, notwithstanding the disputed historicity.

My words should not be understood as a denial of history. The vast majority of what we learn is probably true. It is based on artifacts which provide the facts on which history texts are based. But the historical record also relies on the accounts of those who lived at the time of those events, and their views may be based on ideology rather than truth. We see that with “spin.”

Quoting a Russian proverb, President Reagan said “ Trust but verify.” He was speaking of nuclear inspections, but he was using the words of a nation that had often covered up or altered history to further its position. They're good words, however, for understanding history. The record we have is a valuable guide for us, but it is strengthened, and more worthy of our reliance and observance when supported by reliable evidence.

Properly documented history is not bunk. But sometimes people knowingly make it so in order to aid their own agendas.

June 15. 2017

The Truth

At a time when she lacked the trust of most Americans, when indictment was being considered against her, President Obama said of the former Secretary of State

There has never been any man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton, and that's the truth. That's the truth.

He said it at a rally in North Carolina.

George Washington always told the truth – we're informed that “he couldn't tell a lie” – and he was an above-average president. According to the incumbent, however, he was less qualified than the current Democratic candidate. While it may be true that she is more capable than the one praising her, it's hard not to wonder if Lincoln, Adams, Jefferson, or a host of others might not have had a better résumé or greater reliability than the former Secretary.

It's easy to chalk it up to campaign rhetoric. You'd have to. After all, in 2008, the candidate Senator Obama, maintained that she, (then his colleague in the Senate) Hillary Clinton, was “willing to say anything [in case you didn't get what he meant, that's a euphemism for “to lie”] to get elected.” He had other reservations about her qualifications then. Now – perhaps feeling a debt incurred by her service to him – he seems willing to say anything to get her elected. (Neither her, nor his, lying seems to be a disqualifying feature.) That's what makes America great. Loyalty. To party members if not the Constitution, the citizens, and the country.

It's an effort to inspire confidence in her at a time when she lacks the trust of a majority of our citizens. Perhaps it's her own fault, perhaps it's his. Perhaps it's the fault of the American people at this point in history, but there's no denying that she has neither their friendship nor what they consider the qualifications to lead us all.

Nor does her opponent.

Sadly, it's a given that we cannot believe what politicians say. In theory their calling, their burden, is to perform service for their country – to improve the lot of their people – even if there is a cost to themselves. Just as our “citizen soldiers” have fought to protect us, our “citizen politicians” claim to be willing to sacrifice for us, and it's something we need them to do. The reality, however, doesn't match that theory. The driving forces are, more often, ego, lust for power, and money. These are the rewards of office. And too many of our leaders are in it for the rewards rather than the burdens.

And we are willing, though unindicted, co-conspirators. We accept their words, if not as the truth, as unexceptionable rhetoric. We expect it. (All politicians are liars.) True, some of the media do some “fact-checking,” but who cares? We continue to elect those we know to be falsifying, “spinning,” or inventing “facts.” They're flexible and so are we.

The time has come, however, to fight back. It will probably be a losing fight – certainly initially it will be – but it's a necessary one if we are to restore “a government of the people.” The time has come when people should vote their consciences – not according to party line. It may be easier to have only two parties from which to choose, but it forces us to accept “the lesser of evils” too often – to brook evil. This is a democracy, and we are free to choose.

But we're not the only democracy. There are countries in which parties are formed based on beliefs that may differ from the mainstream; where a difference of opinion, or an antipathy to those running, may inspire the formation of a new political entity, more suitable to public wishes. There's no guarantee that its leaders won't lie, but when it's discovered that they can't be trusted there's precedent for dumping them and starting again. It's messy, but democracy is messy. (Mussolini may have gotten the trains to run on time [actually, he didn't] but it was at great cost.)

In the United States the step to take is to vote for a third party (as I intend to do). There aren't many around, and they're not likely to win, but votes that don't go to major party candidates are a message – one that we hope ultimately will be heard if sent often enough.

As Pogo (the voice of Walt Kelly) said

We have met the enemy and he is us.

And those we're willing to elect.

*

What is the truth? Is it sometimes just the latest opinion? Is it changeable? (By the way, that's an asterisk. Not an asterik or an asterix, which are common mispronunciations. But more on the symbol can be found in the dictionary. You probably have one somewhere around.)

What is history? Is it simply the testimony of the victor or the view of the best writer? Where does mythology end and a true representation of the past begin? Can we change the past if we don't find it agreeable? How can we indicate any differences we may have, or any changes that may have occurred?

One of the biggest arguments in baseball, though it's obviously of no consequence when considering all of the world's real problems, regards the record for home runs in a single season. For a long time the record was held by Babe Ruth who, in 1927, hit sixty. The record held for quite a while and was revered by those who saw the Babe as the greatest hitter baseball had ever known. Then came Roger Maris, who hit sixty-one in 1961. (This all happened in the “old days,” before Mark McGwire hit seventy in 1998 and Barry Bonds hit seventy-three in 2001 – but we'll hold that discussion for now.) Ruth, however, hit his homers in a 154 game season, while the season, by 1961, had been extended to 162 games and it wasn't until after game number 154 that Maris hit his sixtieth and sixty-first.

Although the achievement was great (albeit fleeting – Maris soon disappeared from the scene), some sources chose to put an asterisk in their records to indicate that Maris didn't ”really” break the Babe's record. He just had more time. (Actually he hit sixty in fewer at-bats than Ruth.) The asterisk and explanation added some context to the information however, though it didn't affect the accomplishment. And that is the value of the footnote – however it is indicated. It offers the opportunity to comment on what is written without directly interrupting the flow of the text – and that can clarify what is written. For not everything written as history can be accepted at face value.

It's said that “History is written by the victors.” The concept is old, and the origin of the words uncertain. Some attribute it to Machiavelli, some to Nehru, some to Churchill, and others to a variety of authors. What it indicates, however, is that history is made by the one whose book you read. It's certain that Churchill said “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” It would reflect his views and not those of someone with whom he disagreed. And that presents another reason for the inclusion of footnotes. In addition to context, such notes can offer some perspective on the reliability of the source and, perhaps, alternative understandings of the events portrayed, and why they are described as they are.

The stories about George Washington that Parson Mason Weems wrote in his Life of Washington weren't meant to be taken as the truth. They were “intended to provide a morally instructive tale for the youth of the young nation.” They still do. They are the fables we teach our children even today. But any reference on the subject will ensure that they are understood as “instructive tales” rather than fact. They're wonderful for “the youth of [our not so] young nation” as morality tales that would prove inspiring. But, though created from whole cloth (Parson Weems was a man of the whole cloth), fortunately their allegorical nature is well known.

Not so the work of Alex Haley. Only when his work on the origin of his family as slaves in the American south – a “history” that became a television mini-series – was shown to be a fabrication did he fess up. As Edward Kosner reported in the Wall Street Journal (December 27, 2015), when confronted about his work “Haley staged a dignified retreat. 'I was just trying to give my people a myth to live by,' he took to saying.” The “truth” may be more than a set of facts, but the reader is entitled to know what's “true,” and what's true.

How much of the history we “know” to be true should be foot-noted? How much is reported by someone with an ax to grind? The problem is less that particular views may be favored and considered as truth, but that other views are not always preserved. The Talmud, the compendium of Jewish law, was careful to preserve the arguments and minority opinions on the subjects it discusses, giving future generations an understanding of the various views and possibilities. Some of what were considered minority views have survived as traditions of particular groups and others, after further discussion by more recent sages, have been accepted as normative. The views of the “losers” were not suppressed by the “victors,” but preserved as intercalated “footnotes.”

Though short lived, the asterisk provided such additional information. Who remembers that what was once a “dead” baseball was livened when, in 1911, there was a shift to cork centers for the balls, and that Home Run Baker, who played primarily before the “jackrabbit” ball was introduced, never hit more than twelve homers in a season? (Or, for that matter, that tennis rackets used to be made of wood.) Who considers the fact that Josh Gibson hit over eighty home runs while playing in the Negro Leagues because he was excluded from the white man's domain? Who entertains the notion that home run numbers have been affected by changes in stadium sizes and shapes to increase their likelihood and the profits of the owners? None of this information changes the past, but it gives us the opportunity to view it with added perspective.

Whatever the subject, context and perspective are valuable. You can ignore them if you choose, but their absence cheats you. It robs you of the opportunity to understand what you are considering. It's a shame they're not used more often, and that they're often ignored when present.ⁱ

I        Aye, there's the rub. I used to footnote liberally but, fearing that the notes were never read, I switched to inserting some of the information into the text by the use of parentheses, quotation marks, and other devices.

All Men (And Women)

“[A]ll men are created equal ...” That's what it says. That's what the Declaration of Independence says. Very few people really believe it, but that's what it says. Nonetheless, many assume this means that all their ideas are equal – and equally valid – though apart from its expressions of equality, all the other writings of the Founding Fathers are out of date. Consistency is not one of their strong points.

The bases for their disenchantment with the founding documents (apart from those aspects that are politically correct) are that times change and also that traditions vary in different places and among different people.

Chalk it up to moral relativism.

According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

There was a time in our history and there were places in our own country when slavery was considered acceptable and, among some, virtuous. While a significant degree of prejudice remains, slavery is gone – at least in the United States and in most other countries. By such a definition as the one above, however, slavery was no less “privileged” then than freedom. In fact, it was probably more appropriate.

Similarly appropriate by such standards were child sacrifice among the Aztecs (and other civilizations), the burning of wives on the funeral pyres of their husbands, cannibalism, “honor” killings, female genital mutilation, Nazi eugenics and experimentation on prisoners, and a host of similar horrors. I shouldn't have said “horrors” since this suggests a rejection of the traditions of others. It suggests an acceptance of the heresy of “absolutes.” (True as that may be, admitting it is viewed nowadays as jingoism and bias, so don't quote me.) But all these acts were in keeping with the societies in which they existed.

For the last half century, therefore, we have taught our children – and we have convinced ourselves – that there is no such thing as absolutism. Our mantra has been “Live and let live.” Viewing the practices of others in the light of our own morality is judgmental and unethical. Indeed, we have made a point of exposing our children to the practices of others and sometimes espousing them. Ethnocentrism merits condemnation. So we have sacrificed history in favor of equal representation. Or greater representation of the unfamiliar – even if by doing so we create a new mythology. It is the affirmative action of pedagogy. Our own culture and traditions are of less consequence. There is more “truth” to the views of those uninvolved in world history than there is in the relating of what actually happened.

We have been brainwashed into believing that what happened as a result of “colonialism” should be minimized and that the stories of the “oppressed” are more important for us to learn. Thus our children are educated to be embarrassed by our own story (when they are actually exposed to it), and both texts and tests emphasize the virtue of other cultures, while subtly condemning our own. And all of this is taught at a level that will be understandable to everyone. We do not seek the highest truth, but the lowest common denominator. We serve the pablum of “feel-good” exposition rather the pabulum of honest evaluation. And we are left with a generation (and probably more to follow) of our youth and academic communities tainted by the guilt of their forebears.

We have become a nation in which sense is of less consequence than “sensitivity,” and everyone gets a certificate of achievement. Everyone is equal. All ideas are valid. We are all winners. There are no losers.

Except for truth, our society, and our future. They are the big losers.

Next episode: “Condemned” – Those were the days, my friend.

The Latest News

I was a little hard on the press a few days ago when I discussed the business of selling the news.ⁱ I wasn't wrong, but I didn't go far enough in handing out blame. Not that the media are clear. They're not. But they're only greedy capitalistsⁱⁱ who are responding to the real villains – US.

From their point of view, they're only doing what the Constitution – specifically the First Amendment – guarantees. They're exercising freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Most of them are simply conveying what they've heard – from other news services, from their own reporters, or from press releases distributed by everyone from commercial enterprises to governments. Some of it is reasonably accurate, if you exclude the self-serving and the blatantly opinionated (as you might find in editorials, columns, and advocacy journalists, as well the advertisements that are made to look like the news).

Advertising. That's where the real money is. The majority of a newspaper'sⁱⁱⁱ income, on average, is derived from advertising.^iv And, in large part, it's easy money. Not that it's easy to get the advertising – although an ad is often the best way to induce the public to buy a product or buy into an idea, so the purveyor may be eager to find space for it – but more important to the paper, it is generally press-ready and comes straight from the vendor or his agency, requiring relatively little work on the part of the paper. A good ad sells, so they're crafted by psychologists and other experts.

But it can only sell something if it's seen. And the more people who see it, the better the odds. Which brings us back to the original question: how do you sell newspapers? In the last message I outlined some of kinds of “news” that you're likely to have presented to you. It's hard, though, to ignore the reason for those “stories:” because they sell. People buy the papers that contain the most bizarre and titillating contents. That's what we want – not news but entertainment.^v

So if that's what we want, we shouldn't fault the media for providing it. Their goal is to increase the number of consumers. Large circulation numbers increase the cost of their advertisements and their total revenue. Everybody wins – the papers, the advertisers, and the readers.

Well, almost everybody. Those who are really interested in the news have to be careful. So much of it is slanted, omitted, and sensationalized because the media have learned that that's what their public wants. Truth is a secondary issue. A guarantee of freedom of speech is a protection for the source, not the consumer. The public, however, can learn from good journalistic practice, even if the media don't always follow it. If you're interested in accuracy you'd be well advised to check multiple sources. At least two. It's worth getting confirmation of a story before you believe it. If you read for entertainment, confirmation isn't necessary, but if you really want accurate news, it is.

Two sources. It's a small number, but it's worth getting before you believe big news.

I        Small Numbers, Big News – December 29, 2014.

ii       They have stockholders who are in it for the money. As patriotic and as desirous of maintaining American freedoms, the stockholders are really eager to make as much money as they can. And who can blame them? They have expenses like the rest of us.

iii      As I said in the previous essay, whenever I mention “newspaper” I am speaking of the media in general. It's convenient shorthand.

iv       It's not what it used to be but it's still high. See http://www.naa.org/Trends-and-Numbers/Newspaper-Revenue/Newspaper-Media-Industry-Revenue-Profile-2013.aspx

v        Television “news” programs have also turned into “magazines” in which gossip and personalities are more important than hard news. And it's hard not to find reality shows on the screen. They have replaced reality because we want to be entertained, not informed.

Don't Put A Cold In Your Pocket

                                                                                   

Why do we do what we do? What do we believe? Can we make intelligent decisions or do we lack the information? Do we give any thought to our beliefs? Do we care? Laymen follow (at least they think they do) common sense, or whatever it says on Google. But do we really know what we think we know? And is it true?

To a very significant degree this is a follow-up on the essays of the last two weeks. In this case, however, there's no science fictionⁱ in it. Rather it's an expansion on the issue of education. And it's a sad commentary on the state of what we learn. In the previous messages I suggested that education is, by and large, tailored to the desires of the audience. That's neither an original thought nor an unusual practice. But perhaps a little more exposition would be helpful in understanding my concerns in this area.

We usually associate education with schools. It certainly goes on there, although the results are often spotty, and the information given students is often contrary to what parents think or want. Indeed, sometimes the “facts” are wrong.ⁱⁱ But right and wrong are not significant criteria when it comes to what is learned. More important considerations are the student's age and interests, the frequency of repetition of the lesson, the ability of the teacher and the quality and attractions of the teaching materials, and the rewards and threats – implied and explicit – that accompany learning and not learning a particular lesson.

Childhood is best time for learning: baseball stats, movie star data, and the content of ads are good examples of what they're likely to learn. Kids don't always relate to school lessons but they remember other material that interests them. They learn best what they want to believe or want to know. And from those in whom they have confidence. Very young children trust adults and believe whatever an adult says, both for facts and philosophy. But as they get older, and primarily because of a need for independence, kids begin to rebel – to reject the teachings of their parentsⁱⁱⁱ and, to a degree, those of other adults – especially those not well skilled in getting their attention or who transmit messages in which they're not interested. They trust their peers, however, to be reliable sources of information – especially regarding subjects like sex, which the adults are loath to discuss.^iv Or popular music about which the adults know nothing.^v Actually, those we consider our peers, whether adults or children, are among the most important influences on our learning, even when their lessons are false. (It is they, our peers, who convince us, for example, that “natural” and “organic” are best for us, even if they don't know what the terms mean.^vi They heard it – or something on the subject – from someone else, or they read it in the paper.)

But the best teachers are those in the advertising business. It's not the tenured professor who will keep his job no matter what his students learn,^vii but the advertiser or copywriter who has to sell a product every day in order to stay employed, who is the best educator. It's up to him to convince us there's a problem that only his product can solve. Whether his “solution” has any value is irrelevant, as long as the goods sell. Ideally his product does what is claimed for it, but that's not invariably the case,^viii nor is it necessary. Claims usually precede knowledge, especially if the buyer is primed to accept the presumed value of the product or practice. That's certainly the case with panaceas, snake oil, and beauty products – usually accompanied by some promise of eternal youth.^ix It's also true of other health related wares. “Don't put a cold in your pocket” may be convincing advertising copy, but you can't catch your own cold, so if you use a handkerchief you're not really risking reinfection next time. And if you use tissues and there's no garbage can, you have a choice between littering, and putting the used tissue in your pocket.

Other important teachers are those who advise you to sneeze into your antecubital fossa,^x and that chicken soup is the best cure for a cold.^xi They may not be old wives, but they've learned from them. And they will try to convince you that vitamins are good for you.^xii But, no matter what they say, there's no proof that most of those nostrums they've been using for years have any effect. Don't waste your time offering contrary evidence. There's no changing the mind of someone already convinced. (As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The mind of the bigot^xiii is like the pupil of the eye: the more light you shine on it, the more it will contract."^xiv) Too often what we think is true is more important than what is true. Even if what we think is true was drummed into us by someone with an ax to grind.

It's nice to believe that all we've been taught is true. It's nice to believe that all of those who would provide us with the truth know what they're talking about. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. Too much of what we “know” has been programmed into us either by people who know less than we, but who had custody of our minds before we understood that we could question them, or those who have a vested interest in our accepting what they have to say, whether it relates to politics, advertising, propaganda, or something else.

In short, the time will come when scientists (presumably working on behalf of the government) will be able to load us with the desired “software” to be good servants of the State. We'll be properly educated to believe and to know everything our leaders want us to know. But even before that, our educational system, and a host of other interested parties, will teach us their truths – their catechism. And everyone will learn – whether it is their intention or not to do so. All, especially the young, are very open to whatever they are told. They are open-minded, and they fault their elders for not accepting new ideas. But as James Randi said, “There is a distinct difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head from which your brain leaks out.” And for too many the exposed brain can be washed and the permitted knowledge inserted. That's what will happen if we let it.

But Winston Smith^xv showed us that this doesn't have to be the case. For at least part of his life he was not obedient, even though he had been taught that following the rules made life easier, and disobedience would lead to punishment, he didn't submit to the party and accept the “facts” he was told. He questioned them. And that is what the rest of us can do. If something that we are taught doesn't seem right, it may not be right. And if something we have always accepted seems wrong, it may be wrong.^xvi We can still fight political and societal “truths,” however, if we choose to do so – if we question them and determine their veracity.

But the questioning and the evaluation of new (and old) information is up to us. The learning of the facts that govern us and on which we base our thoughts is certainly a function of education. ^xvii But another function of education is to teach us to question what we are told. When we stop questioning – when we lose the ability and interest in questioning – we will have lost any chance to form correct and meaningful thoughts.^xviii “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” But if the “truths” are false, they shall enslave you. Soon enough, the authorities you don't question will be able to determine your thoughts and make them correspond to what is desired. And what is desired will be determined by the the bureaucrats, regulators, and civil servants and whoever controls them. They will monitor what you think, and they will control what you do. Доверяй, но проверяй – “Trust but verify.” President Reagan^xix may have been concerned specifically with its application to American foreign policy, but it's good advice for all of us.

“If not now, when?”^xx

Next episode: “A La Whatever” – Food for thought.

i         Future science.

ii        “Wrong” is a loaded word – both in terms of factual accuracy and cultural or philosophical acceptability. Who decides such things? How is the culture in which a child is reared (or in which an adult lives) a determining factor in “rightness” or “wrongness?”

iii      They know more than their parents anyway, so there's no real loss.

iv       Parents are simultaneously horrified that their children are learning about sex from their friends (juvenile delinquents with dirty minds), and relieved that the need to have “that talk” no longer exists.

v       And like nothing. Of course our parents didn't share our taste in music either.

vi       Given the choice between natural and unnatural potatoes, which would you choose? And “organic” used to mean that something contained carbon.

vii       Or don't learn.

viii     The FDA has just issued a warning that “antibacterial soaps” have never been demonstrated to be useful, and they may actually do more harm than good by fostering the growth of resistant forms.

ix      The cosmetics usually contain some amazing ingredients like prune oil, vitamin Q, and some unspellable scientific-sounding material that the hucksters try to convince us is the answer to all the ravages of time. The “expert” in the television advertisement will be wearing a white coat, and the “delighted” consumer will usually be a beautiful model.

x       See Tuck And Cover, October 11, 2010.

xi      Actually, good chicken soup is the best cure for almost anything. But it has no medicinal effect on a cold or anything else.

xii     Most medical authorities consider them a waste of money and, in large quantities, potentially harmful. But what do they know? The vitamin salesman knows best.

xiii     He said “bigot,” but the same truth applies to anyone absolutely convinced that he is right about something.

xiv      Conspiracy theories abound. There are so many things that “THEY” are doing to us and that “THEY” don't want us to know.

xv       See 1984 by George Orwell.

xvi     Even worse, we may be taught something that seems right but is wrong. Or we may have such a belief from childhood.

xvii    Much – but not all – of what we are taught is true, but,

xviii   It's also important to consider the reliability of the source. Too often we are given a biased source as “proof” of the validity of a particular claim. A comparison of different perspectives may be revealing, but it's often the case that we accept what we already believe and reject anything that disagrees with it.

xix     Citing a Russian proverb.

xx      Hillel. Pirke Avot, 1:14.

All I Know

                                                                                                      

There were times when Will Rogers showed poor judgment. Like the time he said of Leon Trotsky:

I bet you if I had met him and had a chat with him, I would have found him a very interesting and human fellow, for I never yet met a man that I didn’t like. When you meet people, no matter what opinion you might have formed about them beforehand, why, after you meet them and see their angle and their personality, why, you can see a lot of good in all of them.

And, though said tongue-in-cheek, his view of the press also was ill-considered:

Well, all I know is what I read in the papers.

If you believe what you read there, you're likely to be misled. The media, and most notably the press, are only occasionally reliable – and you'll never be sure of when that occasion is. There are times, especially with a “hot” story, when publication is premature in order to guarantee a “scoop.” Speed may trump fact-checking and accuracy may be sacrificed in order to be first. It's one of those cases which displays the least of their sins – making a sloppy but honest mistake.ⁱ But more often the intent is to present a point of view. Sometimes it is that of the reporter, however often it is that of another party. Some examples are in order. And they include: the reporter who consciously mixes fact with his own opinion,ⁱⁱ who slants the content of his story to promote his own agenda, is practicing “advocacy journalism,” and no warning of the bias presented as truth may be offered by the organ in which the story is told, because the “spin” frequently corresponds to the opinion offered on the editorial page.ⁱⁱⁱ The story, therefore, demonstrates the “proof” and the justification for the paper's position, and bears witness as to why the readers should support this position.

In this instance the reporter is presenting his own version of truth, or that of his editor. But there are also many instances when the “truth” corresponds to the beliefs of others. A paper may tailor its articles to the views of the public. Regular readers of specific publications have particular perspectives and expect the publication to live up to them. Should there be some deviation from the anticipated dogma, readership may suffer, since the readers are really looking for a validation of their own preconceived notions.

Of course it is possible, and, unfortunately, it is common, for a reporter or publication to mislead^iv while telling the truth. All that is necessary, even if there is no slant or misstatement conveyed by what actually appears, is the failure to print the whole truth. An article may be completely accurate as far as it goes, but context may be withheld. The same outcome results from the fact that papers have more information than they can print and there is no requirement that they print both sides of a story. So they wind up telling only part of the story, by means of editorial selection. Only what the publisher wants you to know will appear. What the publication contains is true – and probably what the reader thought anyway – but it's deceptive.

An extension of this form of misrepresentation^v involves the placement of stories – the prominence given them. A front page, “above the fold,” story will have much more impact than one on the inside, and it's far more likely to be read. Similarly one with a picture will more likely be read than one without. The picture, itself, may have nothing to do with the story,^vi but its presence will affect the way the reader will understand it, even if the association of the two leads to an incorrect conclusion. And a good headline writer can create a totally false impression for those who only scan the bold print.

More insidious, however, are those cases when the “news” is dictated by some particular governmental agency or by some pressure group. If, for example, a nation doesn't permit reporting from its territory, reporters will focus their attention on the places where they are permitted to work. The “news,” however damning it may seem, is only likely to come from free countries. Those who might be embarrassed by events on their soil often suppress it. And the news agencies acquiesce or simply lose interest in the situation.^vii

Or the offending party may dictate the “news.” In some lands the only news releases are those that come from the government, or those that are censored by it. Those in charge control whatever you read about, so as to ensure that the message you get is the one the authorities want you to believe. A local reporter who doesn't observe their policies and standards will not have press credentials for very long, and foreign reporters who act in a similar manner will soon be deported.

But those are the lucky ones. A government or a terrorist group whose story is not told in the manner desired may injure or kill the offender, or his family. It's a good way ensure that the story told is the one in keeping with the interests of the “persuader.”

The bottom line is that you can't believe everything you read, or learn from the media.^viii If that's all you know, you've got a big problem. And there are others who want to convince you of things that may not be true.

I'll have more to say about liars next week.

Next episode: “Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire” – Don't trust anyone (except me).

i      This would include both errors of fact and interpretation. The former includes both misinformation and misunderstanding of the information available. For example, “Dewey Defeats Truman” was the result of insufficient information and an excess of wishful thinking. Misunderstanding of available information, however, may result from such considerations as cultural bias. For example, Americans understood (and the press uncritically reported) the results of the recent Israeli election as reflecting a desire for a foreign policy change – something important to them – while Israelis voted more on the basis of social issues, since there was consensus on the need for security.

ii      Admittedly, although the bias is usually high in the awareness of the reporter, although he may not view it as a bias, it is sometimes unconscious and the article is written in good faith with the writer seeing it as objective, but that doesn't change the reality that the actual facts may be presented in a slanted manner.

iii    In such cases the reporter may be slanting an article in the interests of job security.

iv     Lie.

v      Lying even though what is stated is true.

vi     It may be a “stock” photograph from a different time, or taken under different circumstances, which is either not acknowledged as such, or is made clear only in tiny print unlikely to be noticed by the reader.

vii    They justify their position by saying that everyone knows the situation, and there is no point in reporting it repeatedly, especially if it places other reporters at risk.

viii   Including the “tweet” you just received. Or the blog – like this one – you just read.