The Nature of Assertions, Skepticism and Truth
I once again enlist ChatGPT to turn notes into English. I vetted the output to ensure that it has captured my views. It has, and helped me clarify my thoughts as research assistant and ghostwriter.
Preface: The Crucial Importance of Knowing Truth
There may be no more important issue in the world than knowing what is true and what is false. However, this knowledge can be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. Despite this, people continue to have an inordinate tendency to believe that they sit on some privileged epistemological pinnacle and only believe correct things. This misplaced confidence in one's own knowledge can have serious consequences.
The Investment in Beliefs
People often become heavily invested in their beliefs, regardless of their correctness. Over differing beliefs, important decisions may be made in error, friendships may be sacrificed, health may be imperiled, wars may be fought, and so on—all over beliefs that may be incorrect. The consequences of holding false beliefs are profound and far-reaching.
Examples of Consequences
Important Decisions: Incorrect beliefs can lead to poor decisions in politics, business, and personal life.
Friendships: Disagreements over beliefs can strain or even destroy personal relationships.
Health: Misinformation about health and medicine can lead to harmful practices and neglected treatments.
Wars: Historical and contemporary conflicts often stem from deeply held but incorrect beliefs.
The Ubiquity of Divergent Beliefs
It is a commonplace thing that beliefs differ quite radically on any number of topics. This divergence is evident in articles, videos, and the comments sections of online platforms. It is even more evident in everyday conversations. Despite these differences, we all have the tendency to believe that we have understood things correctly, and the other person is in error1.
Observations of Divergence
Online Platforms: The internet provides a vast array of opinions and beliefs, often conflicting.
Comments and Discussions: Comment sections are hotbeds of differing viewpoints and heated arguments.
Everyday Conversations: Regular interactions with others frequently reveal significant differences in belief.
The Illusion of Epistemological Superiority
Somehow, we manage to convince ourselves that we possess a level of deity-like knowledge that our fellows do not. This illusion of epistemological superiority leads us to dismiss others' viewpoints as erroneous without adequately considering the possibility that we might be wrong.
Cognitive Biases
Confirmation Bias: We tend to favor information that confirms our preexisting beliefs and ignore information that contradicts them.
Overconfidence Effect: We overestimate the accuracy of our knowledge and judgments.
Dunning-Kruger Effect: Individuals with limited knowledge in a domain often overestimate their own expertise.
The Need for Epistemological Humility
Given the profound impact of false beliefs and the common tendency to overestimate our own knowledge, it is crucial to cultivate epistemological humility. Recognizing the limits of our understanding and being open to other perspectives can help mitigate the negative consequences of incorrect beliefs.
Strategies for Epistemological Humility
Critical Thinking: Regularly question and evaluate the evidence for our beliefs.
Open-Mindedness: Be willing to consider and respect differing viewpoints.
Continuous Learning: Acknowledge the ongoing nature of learning and the possibility of being wrong.
The challenge of discerning truth from falsehood is one of the most important issues we face. Despite the difficulty of obtaining true knowledge, people often exhibit unwarranted confidence in their beliefs, leading to significant personal and societal consequences. By recognizing the ubiquity of divergent beliefs and embracing epistemological humility, we can make more informed decisions, maintain healthier relationships, and foster a more understanding and tolerant society.
Examining Divergent Views
Reducing Assertions to Elemental Form
Reducing assertions to their elemental form involves breaking them down into their most basic components without losing essential meaning. This process, often referred to as reductive analysis or decomposition analysis, enables a clearer comparison and understanding of the core points being made.
Comparing Multiple Sets of Assertions
When comparing multiple sets of assertions on the same topic, the scenarios that can arise include:
Totally Different Content: The assertions address entirely different aspects of the topic, making them irrelevant for direct comparison.
Identical Content: The assertions are exactly the same, though this is rare.
Overlapping Content: The assertions share some points but differ on others, leading to:
Strong Agreement: The assertions align closely on shared points.
Contradictory Opinions: The assertions differ on shared points.
Neutral or Mixed Views: The assertions partially agree or express nuanced views on shared points.
Logical Possibilities and Articulation
To refine the articulation of possible outcomes:
Absolute Agreement: Complete alignment on every point.
Partial Agreement: Some alignment, some divergence.
Complete Divergence: No alignment on any point.
Nuanced Agreement: Broad agreement but differences in details.
Subjective Agreement: Alignment based on shared subjective criteria.
Authorities and Evidence
When individuals with intellectual authority present conflicting assertions supported by evidence:
Contradictory Assertions: Logically, they cannot both be true; neither must necessarily be true.
Persuasiveness: Varies based on subjective factors, such as rhetorical skill and emotional appeal.
Skepticism: Given the difficulty in discerning truth, skepticism becomes a reasonable stance, akin to the Ephektikoi.
Practical Claims and Confidence
In practical areas where we can make accurate judgments, the nature of the claims often includes:
Concrete Claims: Assertions about the physical world that are observable and testable.
Human-Scale Phenomena: Events comprehensible by humans in scale and timeframe.
Low Variability: Situations with consistent, predictable outcomes.
Observable Causality: Clear cause-and-effect relationships.
Replicability: Claims that can be consistently replicated by independent observers.
Predictive Power: Claims that reliably predict future outcomes.
Empirical Evidence: Supported by robust data and experimentation.
Transparency: Clear, open methodology and reasoning.
Hard-to-Disentangle Claims
Conversely, the characteristics of claims that are difficult to disentangle and verify include:
Abstract Claims: Assertions about non-physical or theoretical concepts that are not directly observable.
Macro or Micro-Scale Phenomena: Events occurring on scales too large or too small for human comprehension.
High Variability: Situations with unpredictable and inconsistent outcomes.
Complex Causality: Relationships with many intervening variables and indirect effects.
Non-Replicability: Claims that cannot be consistently replicated or tested by independent observers.
Low Predictive Power: Claims that do not reliably predict future outcomes.
Anecdotal Evidence: Supported by individual stories or testimonials rather than robust data.
Obscure Methodology: Methods and reasoning that are unclear, proprietary, or inaccessible.
Further Differentiation of Easy vs. Hard Claims
Additional features that further differentiate easy-to-decipher from hard-to-disentangle claims:
Easy Claims
Direct Observation: Can be directly observed by multiple people.
Short-Term Verification: Outcomes can be verified in a short time frame.
Simplicity: Involve straightforward, simple processes.
Consensus: Broad agreement among experts and the public.
Hard Claims
Indirect Evidence: Relies on inference rather than direct observation.
Long-Term Uncertainty: Outcomes are only verifiable over long periods.
Complexity: Involves intricate, multifaceted processes.
Disagreement: Significant divergence of opinion among experts.
Thinking Like the Ephektikoi
The Ephektikoi, or the Pyrrhonian Skeptics, advocated for a stance of suspended judgment in the face of contradictory evidence or assertions. In a modern context, thinking like the Ephektikoi involves several key principles:
Suspension of Judgment: When faced with conflicting assertions, avoid making a definitive judgment about which is correct. Recognize the limitations of your own understanding and the potential biases in the presented evidence.
Continual Inquiry: Maintain an open-minded approach and continuously seek more information. The goal is not to find an absolute truth but to understand the complexities and nuances of the issue.
Awareness of Bias: Be acutely aware of cognitive biases that can influence perception and judgment. Strive to identify and counteract these biases in your evaluation of evidence and arguments.
Emphasis on Evidence: Place a strong emphasis on the quality, consistency, and replicability of evidence. Prioritize empirical data and transparent methodologies.
Avoidance of Dogmatism: Resist the temptation to adopt rigid or dogmatic positions. Recognize that knowledge is often provisional and subject to revision based on new evidence or perspectives.
Focus on Practical Outcomes: In areas where practical decisions are necessary, focus on what works based on the best available evidence, while remaining open to reevaluation as new information emerges.
Practical Judgment and Survival
The ability to make correct judgments on practical matters is crucial for survival. If humans were unable to reliably discern truth in practical areas, our lives would be significantly shorter, and as a species, we would have faced extinction. This underscores the importance of practical knowledge and decision-making based on observable, testable, and consistent evidence.
It is incorrect to assert that we cannot know anything. Practical judgments about the physical world, particularly those involving immediate survival and daily functioning, are often accurate and reliable. However, this tendency to be correct in practical matters may lead to overconfidence in areas where certainty is unwarranted. People often extend this confidence to more abstract, complex, and variable claims where the likelihood of error is much higher.
The Problem of Unwarranted Certainty
This overconfidence is regrettable and problematic. While practical knowledge has enabled human survival and advancement, it can also lead to dogmatic thinking in areas where evidence is less clear and outcomes are less predictable. Various wise individuals throughout history have warned against this tendency, but the message has not been widely absorbed. People tend to believe strongly in the inerrancy of their views, which creates significant challenges in addressing complex issues.
Some Observations from the Wise Men of History
Here are several quotes from sages and philosophers that address the issue of unwarranted certainty:
Socrates
"I know that I know nothing."
This famous Socratic paradox underscores the philosopher's awareness of his own ignorance and his caution against unwarranted certainty.
Bertrand Russell
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Russell highlights the tendency of those with less understanding to hold their beliefs with greater certainty.
Voltaire
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." Voltaire points out the discomfort of doubt but also the folly of absolute certainty.
Confucius
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." Confucius emphasizes the importance of recognizing one's limitations in knowledge, a counter to unwarranted certainty.
Laozi
"He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know." Laozi suggests that those who are truly wise understand the limits of their knowledge and avoid making definitive statements.
Charles Darwin
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." Darwin observes that those who know less are often more confident in their beliefs than those who know more.
Michel de Montaigne
"He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak." Montaigne criticizes the tendency to assert certainty through forceful assertion rather than sound reasoning.
Fyodor Dostoevsky
"It is not the brains that matter most, but that which guides them — the character, the heart, generous qualities, progressive ideas." Dostoevsky implies that true understanding and wisdom go beyond mere intellectual assertion and involve deeper qualities, countering mere dogmatic certainty.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.
"Certitude is not the test of certainty. We have been cocksure of many things that are not so." Holmes points out that being certain does not equate to being correct, highlighting the fallibility of human certainty.
John Stuart Mill
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." Mill argues that understanding comes from considering multiple perspectives, which challenges unwarranted certainty in one's own viewpoint.
These quotes collectively underscore the importance of humility, open-mindedness, and the recognition of our own intellectual limitations in the pursuit of truth.
Conclusion
Evaluating competing assertions from authoritative sources requires recognizing the characteristics that make certain claims easier or harder to verify. Concrete, observable, and testable claims with clear causality and low variability allow for more confident judgments. In contrast, abstract, highly variable claims with complex causality and indirect evidence warrant greater skepticism. Understanding these polar opposites helps in navigating the complex landscape of competing assertions and determining when skepticism or confidence is appropriate. Adopting a mindset akin to the Ephektikoi can help maintain a balanced, open-minded, and critical approach to complex issues, avoiding premature conclusions and embracing the ongoing search for understanding. Additionally, recognizing the necessity of practical judgment for survival can help balance the need for skepticism with the ability to make reliable decisions in everyday life.
A mea culpa: I often fall into the trap of believing my views are correct and that those who disagree with me are wrong. I suspect this is a common, yet regrettable, tendency that seems hardwired into us. Emulating the Ephektikoi has proven exceptionally difficult for me. Perhaps some people manage it better, but I have yet to encounter such individuals.