I just read a political commentary – a hobby of mine I should take more care to resist, but we all have our bad habits.
This commentator’s theme was the importance of showing politeness to those who are wrong about one thing or another and accepting them as friends regardless.
Which got me to thinking: Those who think there’s always a right position when they evaluate positions are wrong.
Mind you, I’m not talking only about those who think their view is always the right one. I’m talking about those who think there’s always a correct view at all.
What I think … and I’m pretty sure I’m right about this … is that there are some subjects that do have right positions. Call them “facts,” because there’s some objective way of knowing what’s correct about them.
Here, for example, is a fact: I’m writing this column using Microsoft Word on a Microsoft Surface Pro that’s running Windows 10.
This isn’t disputable, or shouldn’t be. In principle, should someone doubt the correctness of this statement I could defend it, up to and including inviting skeptics to inspect my office setup, something I would be willing to do, although I’m confident you’d find the sum I’d charge you utterly unreasonable.
There’s a second meaning for right vs wrong, which happens when two parties agree on the facts but not on their interpretation. For many of us, this is where fun happens. It’s where we discover disagreements that can be resolved, or where we have opportunities to deepen our thinking about a subject.
Then there’s the third domain – values. This is where a lot of us get into trouble, because when we disagree about values there’s no way to reconcile them. Values come from tribal membership, religious leadership, and, more often than not, Mom.
If you and I disagree about one of our values, the best we can do is to decide whether we (1) agree with the other’s position; (2) can respect the opposing position (that is, acknowledge that it’s potentially as valid as our own); (3) can tolerate it, which is to say we can peaceably coexist with those who hold it, even though we are quite sure they’re entirely wrong about it. That leaves one last alternative – (4) zero tolerance – that this town ain’t big enough for the two of us.
There are people whose values can’t be reconciled, even to the level of mere toleration. There’s no point in pretending otherwise, which is why exhortations to “do the right thing” are so entirely useless: My right thing is your wrong thing and vice versa.
To illustrate: a stereotypical Apple fanperson must disagree with my choice of computer, operating system, and word processor, and doesn’t respect it, either.
So long as they can tolerate it, though … and there’s no reason for to not tolerate it, as it doesn’t affect the Apple-ite in any substantial way … neither of us has anything to worry about.
If, though, for some unaccountable reason, the Apple-phile decides they can’t tolerate having any Windows users on the same hectare as themself, one of us is going to have to leave town, probably after an unpleasant demonstration of how much we disagree.
Bob’s last word: Wherever politics happen – our interactions with colleagues in a business setting, or arguments about where government is headed in social situations – we’d all be happier, and more congenial, if we kept most political dialog in the second domain, where we disagree about our interpretations of facts.
Regrettably, reliance on “alternative facts” as a means of persuasion is on the rise, while familiarity with epistemology is not.
Well, I think it isn’t, but that’s based only on my day-to-day experience, not on formal, fact-based sociological research. Oh, well.
Anyway, I have a hard time tolerating those who deliberately craft alternative facts, and almost as hard a time tolerating those who consider their values to be facts.
But those are my values. And as you’re (presumably) a long-time subscriber I’m confident we can respect, or at least tolerate, each other’s values.
If you’re among those who can’t tolerate mine, that’s what the unsubscribe link is for.
Bob’s sales pitch: Have I mentioned the KJR archives? They include everything I’ve published under the KJR banner and its predecessor, InfoWorld’s “IS Survival Guide.” If you need the KJR take on a subject, whether it’s out of curiosity or because you need a framework or perspective to address a current professional quandary, they’re free and you’re welcome to use whatever you find.
Although if you make extensive use of my material I would appreciate attribution.
Now on CIO.com: “Bad metrics are worse than no metrics,” and especially why SMART goals just might be worse than no goals at all.
Can I add one more item that the pandemic added to our right vs. wrong? Science.
For some reason, people feel empowered by telling me “that is what the science tells us” or better yet “the science proves this”. Yet I realize that science is a mere point in time and if done right is constantly being studied and debated. We do not stop at one point, slap our hands, and say “got it!”
I am not sure where we as a society lost the desire to listen and discuss, learning from each other. This has blended into the workplace where tribes form and you are right or wrong.
As a practicing cynic, I am now looked down upon as the one that doesn’t get it. It’s not a question of the facts, it’s a question of me not going along with the latest popular beliefs.
Have no fear – the “science” will change and the world will be flat once again very soon.
This is why I bemoaned our collective lack of epistemological competence. The problem isn’t that we place too much emphasis on the science of something. It’s that few people know enough about epistemology to recognize that it’s all about reducing doubt, not about achieving certainty. Going where the science leads us works better than the alternatives. But sadly, few journalists understand how this works. Too often they report on research without making it clear whether a given result is preliminary, solid, or nearly certain.
Saying we should rely on the science is, in my view, very much parallel to saying that when playing poker you shouldn’t draw to an inside straight. What you know about where the cards are changes with every card dealt, but the underlying statistical principles don’t.
So I say, go with the science when there’s solid science to go on. If there isn’t, as you point out, it’s easy to say “Go with the science” when the only “science” there is to go with are a few speculative conversations among scientists who don’t have much research to draw on.
A lot of the conflicts and arguments during the covid pandemic revolved around one simple problem: the SARS-CoV-2 virus was an organism COMPLETELY UNKNOWN to science until mid-to-late-December 2019. Therefore, attempts (and exhortations) to “follow the science” were futile because there literally DID NOT EXIST (YET) ANY SCIENCE to follow regarding the organism and the disease it caused.
The public, and the media, were rightfully demanding answers to life-and-death questions about what the dangers from this organism were, and what to do to avoid them and defend against them. But in the unavoidable absence of GENUINE scientific knowledge, of both the virology of this organism and the epidemiology of this organism, there was an advice-vacuum that was filled by charlatans and b*llsh*t artists and people just making stuff up out of nowhere.
The acquisition of scientific knowledge proceeds at the speed that it does. It does NOT proceed at the speed of human desire, or human need.
Making stuff up out of nowhere, does indeed proceed at the speed of human desire or human need. But it’s still b*llsh*t made up out of nowhere.
At least at first, there was — at best — mere GUESSWORK based upon how OTHER, seemingly similar viruses and diseases behaved. Remember all the fuss about fomites? And all the fuss about how important it was to clean physical surfaces that exhaled/sneezed/coughed droplets might have fallen onto? In hindsight it’s becoming clearer and clearer that all that frantic cleaning was, in effect, little more than Cleanliness Theater. The vast majority of infections now appear to be airborne, partly from droplets but also from the famous “aerosols” that were dismissed at first — again, based on how OTHER SEEMINGLY SIMILAR viruses and diseases behaved. The REAL solution shaping up is cleaning, not solid surfaces, but the air; both via dilution/ventilation, and via filtration.
A lot of the fuss over hydroxychloroquine (remember THAT?) was because of a VERY small pilot study that gave what appeared to be promising results. But it isn’t science if it can’t be replicated, and much larger and more formal studies failed to replicate the results of the initial tiny pilot study. This is an entirely familiar scenario in science. But at a time when people were facing life-and-death decisions and risks, what should have been an issue of facts/science and the not-yet-existence thereof, became an issue of politics and loyalty and symbolism.
If the health authorities had stressed early on, like a constant drumbeat so repeated and so consistent that it becomes boring, that ALL advice is preliminary, and it’s the best that we can guess at until the science becomes clearer, which could take months, then the predictable backlash would have been softened and muted, when SOME conclusions and advice had to be revised because of newer incoming evidence. The very notion that “follow the science” is really just more bias, and perhaps even some kind of propaganda/disinformation campaign, would never have taken root if the authorities had stressed, over and over, the unavoidable uncertainty of the science — but THIS is the best that we can do.
Whether the general public would have understood and tolerated this explanation, is another question entirely.
Well, yes. Personally, I think following the science was still the best we could do, recognizing that the best science we had was, as you point out, the inferences we could draw from how other coronaviruses behave. I also agree that more emphasis should have been placed on just how preliminary these inferences were.
But they were still superior to suggesting we inject ourselves with bleach.
If I could not tolerate your views or comments, I would not be reading you.
I do read you week after week for years now.
Keep writing and sharing your thoughts.
I hope some weeks I rise above toleration to respect!
Kidding aside, thanks very much for staying with me all these years.
Hey Bob,
Here responds a faithful reader and subscriber since the late 1990’s.
While I sometimes (rarely) disagree with your values, I deeply respect the way in which you think… and write….. Thank you for sharing your wisdom on a regular basis.
You might enjoy taking a deep dive into “ON BEING CERTAIN: Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not” by Robert A Burton. (Guys named Bob are a clever bunch, aren’t they?) He’s a neurologist who posits that a feeling of certainty is a neurological sensation. It self-reinforces because people feel positive about feeling positive.
The book gives a longer, more nuanced examination than Asimov’s oft repeated meme “Most people would rather have someone tell them that two plus is DEFINITELY five, than hear a scientist say two plus two is probably four.”
At any rate, keep the faith, and your well-reasoned examination of it.
I thoroughly considered the viewpoint you expressed in this article, and I reached the conclusion that you’re wrong!
But we can still hang out.
Gee, thanks! Uh … which part was wrong?
I was just having fun…
I’ve found it helpful to realize that most people do not have control over how their mind controls them, so I can tolerate the individuals who have zero tolerance (although I have a much harder time tolerating the damage such individuals have had on our society).
My epiphany was reading a book on neurology, and how there are people who firmly believe they are deaf – except they can talk on the phone. Or that they are blind (but studies show they can see) Or the people who firmly believe their spouse is a clone. Or that their left arm doesn’t belong to them (such folks will sometimes have amputations to get rid of the offending limb). Or confabulation – a neuropsychiatric disorder wherein a patient generates a false memory without the intention of deceit. And, counter-intuitively, the more ‘facts’ that are thrown at such believers, the stronger their false belief becomes. Unfortunately, there is much less literature on how to change their belief. So I ‘tolerate’ them, the way I would someone with a physical ailment they have no control over.
I’m not completely in agreement about tolerating some of this. It’s akin to how I think about substance abusers. I can understand they suffer from a disease, but the moment they get behind the wheel of a car my tolerance vanishes.
“… I can tolerate the individuals who have zero tolerance…”
If there’s one thing I cannot abide, it’s intolerance! .?
(I don’t know how long I’ve tolerated 🙂 Bob’s opinions, but it’s since some magazine way back. And thats a fact).
About the expressed hierarchy, if the fact includes “Jewish Space Lasers” need one go further?
About “follow the science”, many seem to equate “science” to ‘asserted fact. Which misses the point of “science”: Our best logical interpretation and conclusion based on what we know. Not something of certainty you find via Google.
Then, there’s “belief”. Which plays strong into this discussion (and wasn’t mentioned). We all do it. I “believe” we have a climate problem based on limited quantitative evidence presented to me. But this belief is based on logical presentation of observable facts by people who know this stuff. Belief can take you another way though. In an interview I watched the pleurodelinael Newt Gingrich acknowledged that many of his people were wrong, but it was “what they believe”. With sadly observable results.
Thanks for the mind-stirrer.