What are the sources of knowledge, and of truth, in which we as individuals, and a society as a whole, are able to place our trust?
Many point towards their particular choice of news outlets, publications or websites, certain television or web channels, and even social media pundits. Still others have relied upon widely accepted experts within certain fields of knowledge, or even long-established organizations, even governments.
In recent years, there have been many web sites that fully dedicate themselves to affirming or debunking claims, thereby granting a score of truth or falsity on various assertions. These so-called "fact-checkers" also become sources of truth for a large portion of the population often being cited as real sources in response to various claims being made.
And of course there are podcasts with one's chosen host as emcee and arbiter of truth via the various guests that honor the show and the subsequent types of discussions that ensue.
Quite popular these days are the slogans: Trust the science! Trust the experts! You're not an expert!
Is this not in reality a type of authoritarianism, even religion? This setting apart from the general population certain specific persons, organizations, journalism outlets, and fact-checking websites smacks of having bequeathed these outlets as possessing special information power. "Go ask the oracle for the answer!" In essence, it is akin to god-like worship in a semi-religious sense. Indeed, people fight over which of their chosen sources are the more worthy of validation and the more distant from reproach. This has fractured society along these lines: either you believe my chosen sources or you are wrong. If two different sources are in disagreement then "information war" ensues. The weapons wielded by each side are things such as: the length of time the source has existed, how many truths have been validated by the source over time, or how many have been debunked. It becomes a matter of scoring that for these zealots sets apart their god as being more worthy of worship, and thus the one and only true source of information power.
In this time, why do people continue to give up their own responsibility for seeking knowledge and truth by questioning and criticism? Is it more important to validate assertions or facts by finding the most valid source of truth or is it more important to try and poke holes in the purported knowledge, find any errors if they exist, and attempt to put the facts through some sort of "trial by fire" via test and experiment, and various forms of data analysis? Leave that to the almighty scientists and experts!
Karl Popper is quoted as having said:
Many point towards their particular choice of news outlets, publications or websites, certain television or web channels, and even social media pundits. Still others have relied upon widely accepted experts within certain fields of knowledge, or even long-established organizations, even governments.
In recent years, there have been many web sites that fully dedicate themselves to affirming or debunking claims, thereby granting a score of truth or falsity on various assertions. These so-called "fact-checkers" also become sources of truth for a large portion of the population often being cited as real sources in response to various claims being made.
And of course there are podcasts with one's chosen host as emcee and arbiter of truth via the various guests that honor the show and the subsequent types of discussions that ensue.
Quite popular these days are the slogans: Trust the science! Trust the experts! You're not an expert!
Is this not in reality a type of authoritarianism, even religion? This setting apart from the general population certain specific persons, organizations, journalism outlets, and fact-checking websites smacks of having bequeathed these outlets as possessing special information power. "Go ask the oracle for the answer!" In essence, it is akin to god-like worship in a semi-religious sense. Indeed, people fight over which of their chosen sources are the more worthy of validation and the more distant from reproach. This has fractured society along these lines: either you believe my chosen sources or you are wrong. If two different sources are in disagreement then "information war" ensues. The weapons wielded by each side are things such as: the length of time the source has existed, how many truths have been validated by the source over time, or how many have been debunked. It becomes a matter of scoring that for these zealots sets apart their god as being more worthy of worship, and thus the one and only true source of information power.
In this time, why do people continue to give up their own responsibility for seeking knowledge and truth by questioning and criticism? Is it more important to validate assertions or facts by finding the most valid source of truth or is it more important to try and poke holes in the purported knowledge, find any errors if they exist, and attempt to put the facts through some sort of "trial by fire" via test and experiment, and various forms of data analysis? Leave that to the almighty scientists and experts!
Karl Popper is quoted as having said:
The question of the sources of our knowledge, like so many authoritarian questions, is a genetic one. It asks for the origin of our knowledge, in the belief that knowledge may legitimize itself by its pedigree. The nobility of the racially pure knowledge, the untainted knowledge, the knowledge which derives from the highest authority, if possible from God: these are the (often unconscious) metaphysical ideas behind the question. My modified question, ‘How can we hope to detect error?’ may be said to derive from the view that such pure, untainted and certain sources do not exist, and that questions of origin or of purity should not be confounded with questions of validity, or of truth. …. The proper answer to my question ‘How can we hope to detect and eliminate error?
But don't fall into any trap and make Popper an ultimate trusted source of truth! Instead, let us learn from this restrained yet open-minded approach to considering the assertions and facts put before us. Let's jettison the questions of "From what source did you derive such a claim?" or "What is the basis of your knowledge?" and instead seek to criticize and question the assertions, to aid in showing ways of testing the validity, to help in finding paths to refuting parts, or the whole, of various theories. In other words, learn to think for yourself. Learn critical thinking. We might then hope to push deeper and closer to whether a claim indeed has some measure of truth and from it, what we might discover in terms of real knowledge.
- Michael C Brizic