Intellectual honesty is a value that I hold in very high regard. It is, like most virtues, impossible to master completely and yet it is absolutely essential that we continually strive for it if we wish to come to any meaningful conclusions in our thought processes and in our social interactions. It is extremely difficult to prevent our opinions and preconceptions from clouding our reasoning, yet if we should wish to arrive at conclusions that are sound and defensible then we must not allow our personal interests to influence our analysis of the evidence for and against certain positions.
An example of why this is so important follows:
Person A and Person B are having a discussion regarding the nature of the Bible. Person A has a strong personal belief that the Bible is the divinely inspired and protected Word of God, and Person B is undecided about the veracity of this claim.
A:"The Bible is God's message to humanity, and he has protected its teachings from inappropriate alteration over the millennia, so we can be sure that it's message today is in accordance with God's will, regardless of the language or format."
B:"How can we be sure?"
A:"Simple. The Bible tells us that this is so."
B:"That is not a logically valid supporting argument, it is merely circular."
A:"Yes, to one without faith. Once you accept it to be true, however, it makes perfect sense."
B:"I see. Perhaps we should discuss another topic? Your arguments are irreconcilable with my understanding of logic."
If person A had shelved their personal beliefs (no matter how firmly held) for the sake of the argument and relied instead on proper logical reasoning, then a very interesting conversation could have developed, and one or both parties may have learned new information as a result. Philosophers can apply a technique that helps to safeguard one from allowing their beliefs and preconceptions from improperly influencing their investigation of an issue. The technique is to identify one's own beliefs on an issue and, instead of attempting to validate them logically, to try earnestly to disprove them. The benefits of this are twofold. First, we are less likely to overlook a contradiction or logical flaw when we are building an argument against our beliefs than we are when seeking to validate them. Second, presupposing that our beliefs don't change as a result of the investigation, we are now very well prepared to counter arguments against our beliefs.
This brings us to the heart of the issue. In American politics, few accusations are more damning to a politician than "the flip-flop". Any politician who changes his or her stance on a Big Issue such as abortion, gay marriage, gun control, social security, or tax policy will be accused of being disingenuous and untrustworthy. They will be portrayed as being nothing more than a weathervane of public opinion, willing to embrace whatever position is most likely to get them elected or reelected.
While it is almost certainly true that most American politicians are morally vapid megalomaniacs, this is, believe it or not, the lesser of two evils. Consider this imaginary scenario: The entire world is plunged into a deep economic depression due to a supernova-sized subprime mortgage bubble bursting, unemployment soars, and the once blissfully ignorant citizens of America are blubbering for their President to magically turn off the negative effects of several decades-worth of unprecedented financial irresponsibility. Oh, yeah, and he's not allowed to raise taxes on the wealthy. Now suppose our imaginary President listens to the best advice of the most respected economists on the planet, all of whom disagree on the best approach to take, and so he or she makes a choice based on the evidence. Suppose a few months later (s)he's halfway through a massive government spending binge designed to inject liquidity into the economy, and every single one of his economic advisers now approach and say, "uhh, we got it wrong and now we are all unanimously convinced that the best thing to do would be to stop spending immediately."
Now our imaginary President faces a conundrum. Should he change his policy? The best interests of the American people are on one side of the balance, and his reelection is on the other. Now this admittedly over-wrought fictitious example is meant to demonstrate that we should encourage everyone to make decisions and form beliefs based on the best evidence available to them at the time, rather than penalize them for showing intellectual honesty.
Think about it. Take it from me, few self-inflicted experiences are as humbling and rewarding as changing your mind about a belief that you have firmly held for a long time. If I ever should meet a man who has never changed his mind about a thing, then I will have witnessed the ultimate in moral decadence. His values will be as the clouds, ethereal and out of view, while mine will be like steel, tempered and forged by a lifetime of scrutiny and investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment