My nephew came home from school a while back, saying that Wikipedia was full of false information. His teacher had told him this, apparently. Now, I like Wikipedia. It's a fascinating project, and I trust it as much as I trust most things I read online. (And I agree, high school teachers should definitely require better sources for homework assignments.) But it was interesting to me that my nephew trusted the teacher more than he trusted Wikipedia. On what basis would he make that determination?
You see similar behavior in most people, including myself. How often do you repeat things you hear as if they were fact? How often do you vote based on things you haven't directly confirmed? "Eating local honey prevents allergies!" "Vaccines cause autism!" "Obama may not have been born in the US!" I suspect some people reading this believe at least one of those things; and I suspect those same people don't have a clear idea defining why they believe them.
You see similar behavior in most people, including myself. How often do you repeat things you hear as if they were fact? How often do you vote based on things you haven't directly confirmed? "Eating local honey prevents allergies!" "Vaccines cause autism!" "Obama may not have been born in the US!" I suspect some people reading this believe at least one of those things; and I suspect those same people don't have a clear idea defining why they believe them.
The unstated issue is a lack of standards of evidence. What will a person accept as true for a particular purpose? Well that depends entirely on what we're doing. Different activities require different levels of surety, depending largely on the consequences of being wrong.
Sometimes the standards of evidence are defined for us. If you're making a bet, it's between those making the bet. If you're writing a school paper, the standard of evidence is defined by the teacher. If you're writing a scientific journal paper, the standard of evidence is often whether your results are reproducible in the real world or not. If you're on a jury, the standard of evidence is whatever the judge tells you the law says.
On the other extreme is if you're satisfying your own curiosity and don't plan to act. In that case, something like Wikipedia is probably fine, but it's entirely up to you if it's not. There are no consequences if you're wrong, because it's all in your head. Whether you need to find a more reliable source depends on the relative values you personally place on your time and the accuracy of what's in your brain.
But what about cases in between? If you're making a decision that will significantly alter multiple lives, Wikipedia is nowhere near good enough. If you're casting a vote, infotainment (i.e. cable news) isn't good enough. If you're making a public statement that millions will hear and potentially act on, one random person's word isn't good enough. So what is?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say most people don't have clearly defined standards of evidence for most purposes. I don't, and I'm one of the more obsessively rational people you're likely to come across. So I'm not going to suggest that you should have a defined standard of evidence for every activity you undertake.
I care about truth. I care a great deal, because it's not good enough to mean well. You have to have real information, or you can't make good decisions. The world works a particular way, and we have to try to figure out what that way is, because that's the only way we can make the world better.
Our goal should not be to show that reality matches our beliefs. Our goal should be to make our beliefs match reality. You make a guess, you test your theory, and if your theory is no good, you throw it out and get a new one. The reason a standard of evidence is important is because it allows you to be wrong. When it comes to things you can test, have an opinion (or don't!), but always be in doubt.
So ask yourself: what propositions about the world do you believe? Politics, science, humanities, nutrition, exercise, trivia, pick a topic. Why do you believe what you do? Because you heard it on the news or read it on Wikipedia or your mother told you? Under what circumstances would you admit your belief to be wrong?
If the answer is "under no circumstances", you're no longer talking about politics or science or what have you. You're now talking about religion. If you're comfortable with mixing your religion with your politics or science or whatever, fine. And if you're comfortable having that little humility, that much pride in your intelligence, okay. But at least be aware that's what you're doing. And if you're not comfortable with those things (I know I'm not), then change.
Admit the possibility of being wrong. Embrace it. Find a way to prove yourself wrong! Nobody will judge you for having been wrong in the past. (Well, some may. But those people are jerks anyway.) At worst, you'll confuse a lot of people who have never seen anyone change their minds before! And at best, you'll be more right, and more humble, than you were before.
Sometimes the standards of evidence are defined for us. If you're making a bet, it's between those making the bet. If you're writing a school paper, the standard of evidence is defined by the teacher. If you're writing a scientific journal paper, the standard of evidence is often whether your results are reproducible in the real world or not. If you're on a jury, the standard of evidence is whatever the judge tells you the law says.
On the other extreme is if you're satisfying your own curiosity and don't plan to act. In that case, something like Wikipedia is probably fine, but it's entirely up to you if it's not. There are no consequences if you're wrong, because it's all in your head. Whether you need to find a more reliable source depends on the relative values you personally place on your time and the accuracy of what's in your brain.
But what about cases in between? If you're making a decision that will significantly alter multiple lives, Wikipedia is nowhere near good enough. If you're casting a vote, infotainment (i.e. cable news) isn't good enough. If you're making a public statement that millions will hear and potentially act on, one random person's word isn't good enough. So what is?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say most people don't have clearly defined standards of evidence for most purposes. I don't, and I'm one of the more obsessively rational people you're likely to come across. So I'm not going to suggest that you should have a defined standard of evidence for every activity you undertake.
I care about truth. I care a great deal, because it's not good enough to mean well. You have to have real information, or you can't make good decisions. The world works a particular way, and we have to try to figure out what that way is, because that's the only way we can make the world better.
Our goal should not be to show that reality matches our beliefs. Our goal should be to make our beliefs match reality. You make a guess, you test your theory, and if your theory is no good, you throw it out and get a new one. The reason a standard of evidence is important is because it allows you to be wrong. When it comes to things you can test, have an opinion (or don't!), but always be in doubt.
So ask yourself: what propositions about the world do you believe? Politics, science, humanities, nutrition, exercise, trivia, pick a topic. Why do you believe what you do? Because you heard it on the news or read it on Wikipedia or your mother told you? Under what circumstances would you admit your belief to be wrong?
If the answer is "under no circumstances", you're no longer talking about politics or science or what have you. You're now talking about religion. If you're comfortable with mixing your religion with your politics or science or whatever, fine. And if you're comfortable having that little humility, that much pride in your intelligence, okay. But at least be aware that's what you're doing. And if you're not comfortable with those things (I know I'm not), then change.
Admit the possibility of being wrong. Embrace it. Find a way to prove yourself wrong! Nobody will judge you for having been wrong in the past. (Well, some may. But those people are jerks anyway.) At worst, you'll confuse a lot of people who have never seen anyone change their minds before! And at best, you'll be more right, and more humble, than you were before.
And if you've changed your politics into your religion, don't be surprised when people oppose you. There's a reason government is supposed to be based on objective reality we can all agree on: because that's what works.
ReplyDelete