The Pitfalls of Knowing

Is it possible to know?  

Much of what bloggers talk about is predicated upon knowing, and whether or not it is possible to know a thing.  Bloggers constantly spout loads and loads of presumptive indisputable fact.  Innumerable mavens of the New (more democratic) Pravda of the blogosphere will use the very same information to promote opposite conclusions.  

How does this happen?  The obvious reason is because people have a tendency to believe what they want to believe, and use information in creative ways to support their cherished positions.  But this still begs the question, "Is it really possible to know a thing at all?"

Sound a bit too esoteric or philosophical?  Perhaps, but consider the following, for instance:  Test groups of people with admitted pro-Israeli sentiment and pro-Palestinian sentiment were shown the same documentary on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  The pro-Israeli group overwhelmingly reported that the documentary displayed a pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli slant, whereas the Pro-Palestinian group overwhelmingly reported that the documentary displayed a pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian slant.  (Vallone, Ross, & Lepper, 1985)

Perhaps this seems a bit pedestrian and obvious to the reader:  a group with a vested sensitivity on an issue will become hyper-vigilant in its reactions to perceived slights to its cause, and will constantly see that which it is on guard against, whether or not it is really there.

This illustrates a principle of confirmation bias, which is a perennial bogey-bear of the thinking person.  Confirmation bias is often what makes collected climate data read as both evidence of man-made climate change for some, and as evidence for natural periodic climatic fluctuations for others, depending upon the desired viewpoint or construct of the individual analyzing the data.  Confirmation bias is the inner yes man.

Does this mean that serious, conscientious men and women of science cannot have honest, bias-free reasons to differ in their scientific conclusions?  Not at all.  In the above example of the two groups favoring either Israel or Palestine, the fact that both groups saw a slant in the reporting against their own cause does not necessarily indicate that there was in fact no bias in the presentation.  

Bias, after all, has a tendency to pop up wherever those wily creatures known as human beings put their two cents, including in documentaries and news reporting (one could argue, especially there).  But I think it also means that people who deal in information must always be aware that they are subject to this most human of fallacies.  I readily admit that I am especially subject to it.  Tolstoy wrote, in his essay "What is Art?",

"I know that most men—not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems—can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty -- conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives." (Tolstoy, 1899)

Why do I bring all this up?  Because I believe it is, for bloggers, the elephant in the room.  And if I'm going to blog, I have to deal with it honestly and up front.  In the course of blogging (and of following current events generally), I will not always have time to do extensive fact-checking or run down any and every opposing point of view for a contrasting opinion.  

Does that mean that my blog will be a soap box, and my audience a "choir"?  Possibly.   That is certainly a risk I run.  But I don't see any reasonable way around it.  Indecision can be every bit the prison as dogmatism.  While dogmatism can make us insufferably bellicose and closed-minded, realize too that excessive open-mindedness can turn us into ineffectual tail-chasers whose rhetorical meanderings aren't worth reading.  It is my hope and endeavor to operate in the temperate clime between these two poles.  And I need my readers to comment regularly, to supply those steady doses of feedback that can contribute to keeping me grounded and realistic.

Another reason I bring up this subject is that there is very real evidence that confirmation bias and allegiance to ideology has truly polluted and corrupted the world of news reporting.  By now this phenomenon is so universally acknowledged as to be axiomatic, and partisan finger-pointing so wild as to be not worth sourcing at the moment.  Suffice to say, evidence abounds, and I think all would agree.

I cannot in good conscience conclude that the only good position is to take no position.  I think this would be pointless and even foolhardy.  I believe there are patterns and signs of the times that can be read by anyone with a reasonable degree of intelligence and intuition.  The trick is to always be ready to abridge one's knowledge and revise one's views with new facts as they are presented (and corroborated).  Openness to this process, I think, is nothing less than essential.  In addition, a good dose of humility and God-given wisdom goes a long way. 

Let us go forward, then, with a renewed commitment to courageously seek the truth, no matter what it turns out to be, no matter how lovely or repugnant, how convenient or inconvenient it is to our desired outcomes.  And let us always be willing to look at new evidence honestly and reflectively, to see if it holds up, with as neutral a disposition toward the latest information as we can reasonably muster. 

As I further blog, I will endeavor to keep myself open, while at the same time taking a position.  Although I don't want to be a jingo, I've definitely come to believe some things.  I welcome scrutiny in this process of examining various topics, because (I believe) I love the truth.  And the truth does not fear scrutiny.  The truth welcomes the light of examination.  It is in the light of more and more perfect examination that the truth shines brightest of all.  

Selected Bibliography

Vallone, R.P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M.R. (1985).  The Hostile Media Phenomenon: Biased Perception and Perceptions of Media Bias in Coverage of the "Beirut Massacre".  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577-585.

Tolstoy, Leo. What is Art? p. 124 (1899).  Translated from the Russian by Constance Garnett, New York, 1894. Project Gutenberg edition released November 2002. Retrieved 2009-08-24.