Sometimes I imagine I am a person arriving from some other planet or from some isolated, remote village, which has precluded any communication with the rest of the world. For some reason, I cannot explain, I arrive to the modern world and have the ability to read in many languages and to understand many different languages. How would I know what to believe? When I pick up almost any newspaper, listen to debates or read books I am offered a variety of truths. It seems that many humans speak with a certainly that their truth is the only possible truth. If I were indeed some person not connected with any established human culture I would have a difficult time knowing what is true. I might even begin to doubt my own limited direct experience.
I am not a person from another planet and I have not been living in some isolated place precluding any communication with outside sources. Just for the record, I also am not one of those persons who are fluent in several languages. In fact, much of the time I am not sure that I am at all fluent in English. So often what I think I am clearly saying is heard as something completely different by another person(s) even though we have English as our primary language. Every day I am exposed to variety of opinions, often presented as factual, on the same subject.
Given the variety of opinions and my difficulty in “hearing” or reading the same material as another person even when listening to the same words or reading the same books, how do I know what to adopt as the “truth de jour”. The fact that I am blessed with many friends who are each very positive about particular “truths” can leave me even more confused.
Obviously, we humans, since the beginning of recorded history, have often held tightly to our version of the truth. Just yesterday I listened to part of a public radio program in which the participants were discussing this history of how we often move from greatly contested new ways to thinking to adopting those same new ways as the norm. There are many examples of this from the proposal that we consider the possibility that the earth is round to ideas about the philosophy of math to ideas about marriage, conception, gender “rights” to the use of drones in everyday life. Many of these ideas, when first proposed, were considered extremely radical and/or the thinking of a deranged person. Some of the radical thoughts where are daily proposed are indeed the thoughts of a deranged person. Some come to be accepted as the new norms or new truths.
Some of these truths we have been debating or arguing about since the beginning of recorded history. Take the matter of those are poor and/or black. Some possible truths about “them” that I have read and heard just in one morning might nclude:
· Tom Jackson speaking against Medicaid expansion which he calls entitlement expansion in an article on the editorial page of The Tribune, June 1, 2015, p. 11 says “Expansion brings, fundamentally, growth of the entitlement state, accompanied by new taxpayer burdens and, both government and academic studies predict, an appreciable surge in the population who are content to be coddled n the public safely net.”
· Joe Henderson in an editorial article on the same page of the Tribune suggests that some working people just do not make enough to afford health insurance.
· In a letter to the editor on page 10 of the same newspaper sates, “The ugly truth is that in many ways the black community has not lived up to Martin Luther King’s vision of personal responsibility.”
· Richard Ringled in a letter to the editor says of the recent Baltimore unrest, “The death of anyone is sad, but people make choices, and these people made a bad choice. They had no respect for authority.”
· On the Editorial page written by the editors of the newspaper there was an article entitled “Panhandling laws are needed.” It is speaking to those who ‘panhandle’ for funds to support organizations, which serve those who need a hand. It says, “In actuality, their ‘ability to interact’ is a euphemism for their unwanted intrusion into your personal space.”
· An article on page 1 of the Metro section discussed the desire to of a dentist to renew his license. He happens to be in prison because, while “driving drunk” he “mowed down” and killed two 24-year-old hotel workers. As an addiction counselor my first thought is that he is dealing with an alcohol addiction and needs treatment. Certainly it is sad about the two young people who were killed. One of the women who son was killed by the man who was driving under the influence is “going after Moye’s state license to practice dentistry-and along with it, what she sees as the high-flying lifestyle it afforded him.
· Articles about how the profit motive affected procurement of war materials.
· An article on restrictions in the state of Florida on the use of solar energy, which is clearly related to profits of big utility companies.
Mercy! One could go on and on. The point, from my limited standpoint, is that very good people have very divergent views on the role of “choice” in determining such states as poverty and wealth. If we “choose” to be poor, an addict, or to be wealthy at the expense of others it is okay but the rest of us should not be responsible for those choices. Racism, luck, trust funds, gender and base ability to function in our current culture, and other factors have little influence on how financially successful one is.
Of course, it is tempting to just discount all those who disagree with us as uneducated, insensitive, stupid, non-thinking, liberal, conservative, racially biased, self centered, lazy, bad, self-righteous, people. Certainly I have been accused more than once of being one of those insufferable, non-thinking, uneducated, bleeding heart liberals. Usually this is when a discussion has turned into an exchange of sound bites and is not longer a civilized debate.
We are, of course, still left with the dilemma of deciding what to believe and what not to believe for today. We are also left to the job of carefully examining all the “facts” that we can gather and coming up with one of the following conclusions:
· X is accurate
· Y is accurate
· Both X and Y are accurate – they are not mutually exclusive.
· Neither X or Y is accurate.
· There is not enough evidence to make a reasonable guess as to which is accurate.
· Z or another possibility is more accurate
· It does not matter what is accurate. The point of the debate was not about X, Y or Z. It was a relational issue.
The point is that if we are going to have an educated opinion about something, someone or some relationship we are going to have to learn how to think critically. Although many folks can and do disagree about the parameters for critical thinking, at the very least it begins with the willingness to be open to a new “truth” than the one I previously learned. I have to be able to suspend what I think I know and be wiling to research what is commonly known or thought about this subject. (The null hypothesis in scientific research.) Some subjects are relatively simple to research. The floor in my condo appears to be ceramic tile. It is a reasonable assumption that underneath that tile is a cement slab upon which this condo/villa is built.
The question of whether it is moral for me to be living in the 1000 plus square living space by myself is open to discussion. The question of whether I have benefited in my lifetime by the appearance of being Caucasian is, in my mind, a well “proven” fact.
As is true for many who are directly or indirectly responsible for the educational system in the United States I have some concerns about our approach to education. I often fear that we are teaching memorization so that individuals can pass true and false or multiple choice tests rather than leaning how to think critically. When I have been in the position of substitute teaching in grades 1-12 or teaching a university class, students often seem frightened by my expectation of critical thinking. On the other hand, many were comfortable with memorizing so called facts.
When teaching colleagues at conferences or continuing education classes the expectation often seem to me that I would present “facts”. Often, such as in the case of ethics courses, what was wanted were the “rules” or the laws and not a discussion of how we decide if some action is ethical.
Obviously, I do not rely for “facts” on the newspaper or other popular media. These medium are often forced to frequently present brief, succinctly stated opinions. I am aware that often those opinions will be presented as facts. It is up to me to do more research before I decide what “truth” seems to withstand the test of scientific scrutiny.
In my writing I also want to be more careful to not appear to be stating facts, but opinions, however carefully I might have considered them. If I am very fortunate I will continue to have friends and colleagues who challenge me to think outside the box into which I have put my idea/opinion.
RSS Feed