The nature of truth is something that fascinates me. Read Aaron Swartz’s posts Up With Facts: Finding the Truth in WikiCourt and Down is Up: What This Stuff Is, then head over to Calpundit for Conservative Lysenkoism….The Definitive Report (mentioned previously at this blog). #

Here’s my comment on Aaron’s first post here, with some reflection on and by the others… #

[Update 2/23/04 7:49 pm] Here’s a very interesting and thoughtful response to Aaron’s “Wiki Court” proposal. #

[Originally posted as a comment on www.aaronsw.com] #

This is a bit rambling, so I apologize. I found your hypothesis provocative… #

We already have an excellent system for telling truth from lies and it’s called “using logic and reason.” The problem is that most people aren’t educated in proper use of the system. #

I find this post intriguing, Aaron, especially contrasted with your other entry, “Down is Up” and the recent report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists saying that the Bush administration sticks its head in the mud when it hears scientific conclusions contrary to its policy positions (one analysis of which is at Calpundit). #

The problem is not that we don’t already have ways to evaluate a statement’s veracity. The problem is partly that we’re lazy and partly that the people we depend on to be the sentinels of the truth – the media, the clergy, legislators, and most other people in the public eye – have been asleep at the switch, accepting and repeating false statements as facts. #

If I make a claim like “The sky is blue,” I make a statement that you can easily verify, and I imply in the statement the method of verification. You know where the sky is, so you can look at it and see if I’m telling the truth. #

If, on the other hand, I make a statement like, “Al Gore said he invented the internet,” verification is a bit more problematic. If you know Al Gore you could ask him, I suppose. But most of us do not know Al Gore and so, based solely on the above statement, have no way of knowing if this is the truth or not. And so the proper step to take at this point is for you to ask me for clarification. You ask me, “Really? That’s an extraordinary claim! Did you hear him say it? No? Well, did you read it somewhere? Where? Did the person writing this hear him say it? If not, where did he get his information? In other words, buddy, back up your claim with a cold, hard fact.” #

Whew! That’s exhausting! And it’s too much work, which is why most of us fall back on one of two expedients: the expert fallacy or the Gut Check fallacy. I.e., we either trust that the person who made the claim, being an expert of some sort, must know what he’s talking about, or we look someone up and down and guess whether he’s lying or not. #

Add to this the imprecise nature of language and the time pressures of the media world and you can have a real mess on your hands. Play the telephone game sometime to remind yourself how small errors can get easily introduced in the simple transmission of information and become magnified to hysterical proportions. This would even be the case were some version of the Wiki process you suggest in place. Until the day we each have simultaneous and instant access to the same information, the only way to prevent the repetition of falsehoods is for each of us to be responsible fact-checkers. #

Let me propose a far simpler formula for keeping falsehoods from being repeated. When presenting a statement of fact, it should be in this form: #

“According to X, Y.” #

Where Y is a statement of fact and X is a reference to a tangible, verifiable piece of evidence. #

Give me the method for verifying your statement. If it’s true, there should be no reason not to. #

Which leads me to my final point: We have to be less willing to tolerate prevaricators. There should be serious repercussions for politicians, scientists, or members of the media who can be shown to have passed along false information, especially when the information could have been verified. Mistakes are one thing, but not checking your sources because you had a time deadline is – according to me – unforgivable. #

As is simply lying because it suits your agenda. No rational system in the world – Wiki-based or otherwise – if it relies solely on logic, will be able to defeat the irrational act of ignoring the facts. Citizens concerned about truth and honesty must back up their rational systems with the passion of their morality. Only when irrational actors find no gain in behaving irrationally will there be a chance they’ll change their behavior. Only when honest people stand up for the truth will irrational behavior become irrelevant. #

Bottom line: educating the public in the use of logic and reason and in high moral standards will remain the surest method of consistently finding the truth. #

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

• No Related Post

Thursday, February 19th, 2004 @ 4:17 pm Truth Matters
RSS 2.0 Both comments and pings are currently closed.