How do we know?
Today a friend mentioned epistemology as a personal interest. As a high school senior, I took a college course, Philosophy 101, where epistemology began a lifelong commitment to asking the question: How do we know?
How do we know anything? How can we distinguish between truth and falsehood? These questions seem to be at the heart of this election and our cultural, political, and religious divisions in 2024. Most people accept that “misinformation” and “disinformation” – even outright lies – often close off honest, respectful conversation and lead to argument about who is responsible for false and misleading information.
One analysis claims that Trump campaigned on “easily provable lies,” but people believed them and supported him because of a “conspiracist mindset that says the mainstream media is the enemy of the people, the government is controlled by the Deep State, and scientists are on the take” – all of which this analyst says are demonstrably false.” She goes on to give examples of how Trump “discredited” the press and the government (and others) as sources of accurate, true information. Trump claimed that it was all lies, and people believed him.
“Once you adopt a conspiracist mindset,” the writer says, “where you can dismiss any evidence that clashes with your prejudices as part of the conspiracy, you are free to create your own reality. … [And] conspiracy theories take away our ability to have good-faith debates. If everything you don't like becomes evidence of your opponent's plot to destroy you, you can't discuss anything rationally.”
One challenge as a society, as a nation, is that people who hold opposing beliefs will say that’s true about the other side. I agree with many examples this writer gives of a conspiracy mindset among many Trump supporters, but I also know that many people claim the same for those who supported Harris and much of what the Biden administration accomplished.
So how do we know what is true? What to accept or reject? To believe or refute? How can we have honest, respectful conversations with people diametrically opposed to how we see the world and understand what is true? I have no “magic formula,” but I refuse to believe there is no hope for us – that we can never again be friends with people who seem to live in a different world than we do.
Only 26% of adults in the U.S. voted for Trump, so at least 74% of us are in agreement or might be open to hearing other ideas. For us to go forward with this effort, we have to want to know what’s true, not just what agrees with what we already think. We must resist arguments and debates and trying to “score points.”
We can – we must – challenge what we are convinced is not true. Challenge misinformation, disinformation, and lies, certainly. But how? Here are two suggestions:
1. Challenge what is said, not the person who said it. How can we engage in honest, even civil, conversation if we attack the person? This requires empathy – the ability to understand the feelings of others. Not that we agree with their feelings, but that we begin to understand why they feel that way.
2. Ask questions. Make them open-ended questions that cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. We might ask:
a. Why do you believe that? Help me understand (with a desire to understand, of course.) And – “Have you thought about ….” (and express your belief).
b. Can you tell me more about where that information came from? (And respond with, “Can I tell you what I have read or heard?”)
Our path forward will not be easy. Nothing will be resolved immediately no matter what we do, but we must begin. Start with one person. Then another. When enough of us engage in pursuit of truth together, we can change at least a small part of our world for the better.
