Pesented here is Chapter 18. Truth. of the e-book Bye-Bye Sweet Liberty.
“One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives.” Note on Pudd’head Wilson’s calendar.
[It is the so-called simple things that often trip us up.]
From childhood it seems we have all known what the word truth means. Yet in the United States today, we find ourselves reeling, and we know it is time to examine our notion of what is truth.
The dictionary mumbles something about conformance with facts, but what does this mean? Digging deeper, delving somewhat into philosophy and history, we come up with two prime definitions: 1) That which most people agree upon, and 2) Accurate reporting. The first definition is supported by a group of philosophers who denominate themselves Pragmatists. Well-known Pragmatists who have had a marked influence in law and education are Oliver Wendel Holmes and John Dewey. The second definition has been in common use throughout human history, but was formally analyzed and written upon extensively by physicist Karl Popper.
OK, so what?
Well, the first definition leads to situation ethics. The second definition describes modern science. The following example illustrates.
Imagine 200 people sitting in an auditorium. There is a single window through which the outside can be observed. Suddenly profuse drops of water are seen falling outside. Several people comment that it is raining. All arrive at the belief it is raining. For them, the statement "It is raining," is a truthful statement. Suddenly a person enters from the outside and says, "Hey, did you know a pipe has burst on your roof?" This prompts many in the group to examine the situation more closely. Some go to the door and peer out, some go to the window. They seek confirmation for one or the other of the two opposing ideas: rain or burst pipe. If the person has reported accurately, he has told the truth. If not, he has lied.
In the story The Emperor’s Clothes, the little child who finally remarked upon the Emperor’s nudity was reporting accurately -- that is, the child was telling the truth.
This is not a matter of small consequence. Millions of people in China starved to death believing in the policies of their beloved Mao. To them the truth was what the great leader told them. He could never be wrong. Their revolution was good and virtuous. Anti revolution was evil. They would meet their grain production quotas, and they would exceed them. To do so they shipped practically all the grain they had, leaving none for themselves.
In the example above, we see how a general consensus can be construed as truth, given human emotion and the comfort derived from widespread agreement. But this definition is fraught with peril. If truth is thought of in such terms, then it can be manipulated. This leads to ideas of indoctrination (Hello, Dr. Goebbels), Maoist-style starvation, and Salem witch trials.
The only way to establish truth is to constantly test it from all available vantage points. Truth must be based in objectivity, not in ideology. This is the way of science. This is the way of rational, enlightened human beings.
Friday, March 13, 2009
How to Expose a Lie
For the uninformed, i.e. the young or the uneducated, the task of exposing a lie is a daunting one. The best weapon is knowledge
[see blog. go to link at bottom of this page.], but this is precisely what youth and the uneducated lack. To understand this, and to see how to expose a lie, consider the following hypothetical situation: Say you have a panel of two people, one of which is a liar and the other is not. Say also that each is subject to making honest errors. Now say the measure of a lie is the intention to misinform; that is, there are two requirements: 1) intent, and 2) use of information that does not agree with reality. The situation can be made more difficult if the liar is capable of mixing true statements in with false ones. Difficulty can also be enhanced if the liar accuses the honest man of being a liar. Note that a clever liar will be highly knowledgeable and will be able to accuse his opponent of lying whenever the opponent simply makes an erroneous statement, even though the statement was made without any intention of deceit.
The best tool for uncovering a lie is knowledge. If one of the two people on the panel insists that “George Bush has poisoned Americans,” then the statement requires further investigation. “When, where and how?” If the reply is vague: “You know, all over the country,” you must be knowledgeable enough to realize such a wide scale event would be impossible to conceal. If the reply is precise: “He poisoned 4 workers on his ranch in Crawford, Texas in 1998,” you must posses enough knowledge to pursue with further questions to expose the lie. For example you must know that there are many news reporters who hate George Bush that spend many of their waking hours seeking to tarnish Bush in any way possible. You then must ask yourself: Is it reasonable to assume that Bush could have gotten away with a quadruple murder in 1998, given the constant muckraking by his haters in the media?
A good tool for rooting out a lie is to note whether or not the person making the statement might benefit by lying. If there is a clear benefit that might accrue to the liar (eg., being successful in an election), be on the lookout for a lie. Admittedly, there are some liars whose only motive is the thrill of misguiding others, so they lie more for sport than for personal gain. Note, however, that a liar for sport will also lie for personal gain – without fail.
Another good tool is to be aware of the company kept by the two people on the panel. The honest man will keep the company of honest men. The liar will usually keep company with fellow liars. Mistakes are possible, and an honest man might find himself in the company of a liar, but only until he learns of his error. The liar may intentionally keep company with honest people, but only as long as he sees an advantage; his real friends will be those like him.
Once you have exposed what you are certain is a lie by one of the panelists, that is all you need, even though the lie is a small one. You must make certain it is a lie and not a mistake, however. A typical example of the small lie is the “fib” about a golf score or a bowling score. To distinguish between a mistake and a lie, I usually look for two or three repetitions before drawing a conclusion about a liar.
[see blog. go to link at bottom of this page.], but this is precisely what youth and the uneducated lack. To understand this, and to see how to expose a lie, consider the following hypothetical situation: Say you have a panel of two people, one of which is a liar and the other is not. Say also that each is subject to making honest errors. Now say the measure of a lie is the intention to misinform; that is, there are two requirements: 1) intent, and 2) use of information that does not agree with reality. The situation can be made more difficult if the liar is capable of mixing true statements in with false ones. Difficulty can also be enhanced if the liar accuses the honest man of being a liar. Note that a clever liar will be highly knowledgeable and will be able to accuse his opponent of lying whenever the opponent simply makes an erroneous statement, even though the statement was made without any intention of deceit.
The best tool for uncovering a lie is knowledge. If one of the two people on the panel insists that “George Bush has poisoned Americans,” then the statement requires further investigation. “When, where and how?” If the reply is vague: “You know, all over the country,” you must be knowledgeable enough to realize such a wide scale event would be impossible to conceal. If the reply is precise: “He poisoned 4 workers on his ranch in Crawford, Texas in 1998,” you must posses enough knowledge to pursue with further questions to expose the lie. For example you must know that there are many news reporters who hate George Bush that spend many of their waking hours seeking to tarnish Bush in any way possible. You then must ask yourself: Is it reasonable to assume that Bush could have gotten away with a quadruple murder in 1998, given the constant muckraking by his haters in the media?
A good tool for rooting out a lie is to note whether or not the person making the statement might benefit by lying. If there is a clear benefit that might accrue to the liar (eg., being successful in an election), be on the lookout for a lie. Admittedly, there are some liars whose only motive is the thrill of misguiding others, so they lie more for sport than for personal gain. Note, however, that a liar for sport will also lie for personal gain – without fail.
Another good tool is to be aware of the company kept by the two people on the panel. The honest man will keep the company of honest men. The liar will usually keep company with fellow liars. Mistakes are possible, and an honest man might find himself in the company of a liar, but only until he learns of his error. The liar may intentionally keep company with honest people, but only as long as he sees an advantage; his real friends will be those like him.
Once you have exposed what you are certain is a lie by one of the panelists, that is all you need, even though the lie is a small one. You must make certain it is a lie and not a mistake, however. A typical example of the small lie is the “fib” about a golf score or a bowling score. To distinguish between a mistake and a lie, I usually look for two or three repetitions before drawing a conclusion about a liar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
