WHAT DO YOU KNOW ? (Part 3 of 3)

John G. Cottone, Ph.D.
Mar 26, 2019
4 min read

In Part 1 (click here) of this three-part article I described the limits of our ability to know things and suggested that in the absence of knowledge we rely more on faith than we realize. In Part 2 (click here) I discussed postmodernism and how people with a range of intentions attempt to exploit the gaps of our knowledge. In Part 3 I will discuss the difference between "facts" and "Truth" and our increasing reliance on specialists in every field.

-----

There is a scene in Man of La Mancha, the musical about Don Quixote, in which the character Sansón Carrasco attempts to disillusion the whimsical knight, explaining that there have been no kings under enchantment, no giants, no knights and no chivalry for three hundred years: "These are facts," Carrasco exclaims, to which Don Quixote defiantly replies: "Facts... are the enemy of truth!"

Each day we are bombarded with information on our myriad rectangles - computers, TVs, smart phones and newspapers - and much of this information has been edited (i.e., doctored) to be as salacious as possible. Within the context of our rectangle interactions we have but a limited ability to separate fact from fiction, but even if we could, would we ever be able to determine whether any of these 'facts' the are allies of 'Truth' or at war with it?

A "fact" is a piece of information that is accurate, but only within a limited context or from a single perspective. On the other hand, the Platonic notion of "Truth" refers to the way things are, independent of context and perspective (i.e., assuming unlimited consciousness and infinite perspective). This tension - between facts and Truth - is at the core of all everyday conflicts, political differences and conspiracy theories. As such, a piece of information could be a fact but not a Truth.

Imagine I showed you a single side of a cube in such a way that the other five sides were obscured from view and when I asked you what color of the object was you correctly answered "blue."

Now imagine that I showed someone else a different side of the cube in the same way (obscuring the other sides), but this person reported that the object shown to them was "red." Assuming you were both being honest you and your counterpart would be stating facts in reporting that the objects shown to you were "blue" and "red," respectively. However, the larger Truth, unbeknownst to each of you, is that you were each being shown a single, two-dimensional side of a three-dimensional, multi-colored object.

We make passive, unconscious decisions every day about the institutions - schools, governments, media outlets, etc. - we trust to deliver us facts without questioning the extent to which these facts approximate Truth. We surrender our minds mindlessly to these institutions because we have faith in them; and while some may be worthy of our faith, others exploit it. My goal, however, is not to discourage the practice of faith but to place limits around it.

Since Gutenberg invented the printing press, each succeeding generation of our species has accumulated knowledge at a faster pace than its predecessor. Ironically, however, as the cumulative sum of human knowledge expands towards infinity, each individual human actually possesses a diminishing percentage of the whole because the amount of knowledge an individual can acquire in a single lifetime remains limited. Accordingly, with each generation we become ever more dependent on the expertise of specialists in all areas of life.

The specialists we depend on may have important feedback for us personally (e.g., a diagnostic assessment of a very specific medical problem we might have) or feedback affecting us on a societal level (e.g., scientific recommendations on the best way to handle global disasters and epidemics). Unfortunately, the most notable incubators of faith in our society - religious institutions - have been compromised by so many scandals that it has become extremely difficult for people to feel comfortable having faith in them. As a result, religious observance continues to decline, which appears to be occurring in concert with a decline in faith in our secular institutions as well.

We now find ourselves in a Catch-22: at a time when our faith in institutions - religious and secular - is diminishing, it is increasingly necessary for us to have faith other in people who possess the knowledge we lack.

In light of this paradox I have a few recommendations: First, remain committed to the practice of faith, but avoid offering faith mindlessly. Don't be afraid to regularly question whether the sources of your information are worthy of your faith because no individual or institution is beyond reproach.

Second, after receiving any fact, from any source, ask yourself this simple question: "How do I know this is true?" In one of his most famous teachings, the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha warned his students to "not hold tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it" or find it to be "logical." In the postmodern world, it is all too easy for us to limit ourselves to those cable news channels, newspapers and websites that confirm our preexisting beliefs and make us feel "comfortable." These media outlets will give you all the facts you require to support the conclusions you've already reached, but as our friend Don Quixote reminds us, "facts" are not the same as Truth.