A disheveled older man sat on a New York City bus clutching a single page of newspaper that looked as though it had been retrieved from the trash. Periodically he would tear off a tiny piece and release it out the slightly opened bus window. After four or five such occurrences a young businessman in the seat across the aisle became perturbed. “Why are you doing that?” he asked the old man. The old man released another piece of paper from the window and watched as it fluttered away. “It keeps the tigers away”, he answered the younger man without looking at him. “There are no tigers here!” the young man jeered. The old man looked at him and smiled, “Yes, you see how well it works!”
Science is rarely done correctly by scientists, and even less so once money or politics become involved. Scientifically, one would arrive at the truth concerning a subject through observation of reality, the development and testing of hypotheses, and the establishment of a belief system based on the finding of fact. More often, in the real world, it is done in reverse. The belief system is arrived at apart from observation as a sort of mythology of our worldview, we set up explanations and positions that support our beliefs and diligently search for “facts” and statistics that provide the “evidence” that we are right. At the same time we discredit or ignore contradictory observations. We see and interpret things as we already believe them to be, and with such a precarious method we can ill afford to heed evidence to the contrary; like the ancients devoted to their particular mythologies, heresy is not tolerated.
Disaster and catastrophes were at one time explained in accordance with the existing mythologies as the result of a certain god being offended. We now explain them with our modern day mythologies. An unusual hurricane hits New York; clearly the result of climate change. A financial collapse can be blamed on inadequate regulation, or too much governmental interference, or the inadequacy of capitalism and free markets as an economic structure. Twenty children are killed by a mad gunman; evidence that gun ownership needs to be more tightly regulated, or teachers need to be armed, or madness needs to be better managed.
There are more ways than just science to attain knowledge. Intuitions, revelation, and creative thinking can sometimes bring us places plodding science has no hope to arrive at. Mythology is not always wrong. Controls and regulations might indeed sometimes be advantageous. Climate changes might prove statistically significant, and possibly human action is a factor. God may sometimes actually be angry. However, pointing anecdotally to random occurrences as empirical evidence that your mythology is valid is the lazy man’s way of pretending to do science. If you seek to impose your mythology on others you’ll need to work a little harder.
IMHO: Lies sometimes die hard, but eventually they all do die. Truth is eternal, and is unafraid to stand beside that which is false. The weaker the case, the stronger the opposition to alternate views, the greater the desire to shout them down. The problem with insisting that your mythology stand alone is that it limits the search for answers to that which might provide none. If I don’t buy your ideas, you can call me stupid, or maybe work a little harder to prove your case. We should all be open to the thought that we are not individually the repository of all truth and knowledge, that we might occasionally be wrong. Question your own mythology, test it thoroughly, hold suspect that which you think you know, keep an open mind…What seems to work on a bus in New York City, might prove less effective in the jungle.
Great post! My former philosophy professor used to tell me that his father, German philosopher Balduin Schwarz, would always remind him that only the truth is what matters. We might not like what “the other side” stands for, or what those holding “the other view” may have to say about other issues, but “maybe on this issue they are correct”, he would say. In politics, we tend to pick and choose our views based on our (or our party’s) ideology instead of examining each particular issue anew with an open mind and heart. We search the internet for “evidence” to confirm us in our belief that Obama is a socialist or that Romney is the antichrist, or vice versa, and we succeed. We feel well-informed after watching an hour of Fox News or MSNBC when, in fact, we have no clue. The two-party system may suggest otherwise, but many of the challenges we are facing are incredibly complex. Political journalism can play an important role in conveying such issues to the general public but we should probably all try a little harder to find sources that provide us with factual information and, as is the case with your blog, motivate us to think for ourselves.