Daily Grind - Truth is hard, and so is reason
When "evidence" just comes down to just what people say
Yesterday I wrote about a poll that puts numbers on how cultish the Trump movement has become. I’m defining cultish here as when a group only accepts one person’s viewpoint as truth. The CBS News/YouGov poll showed that Trump voters believe him over many other groups - even friends and family - when it comes to determining what is true.
I also mentioned that truth is hard. While generally true, it’s especially hard when you have no way of settling basic facts for yourself. This is the case for virtually all of the facts of modern understanding. It’s highly unlikely that you, by yourself using your own intellect and experience, will be able to determine that the earth is round, that particles make up the basic stuff of the universe, that vaccines are safe, that Russia invaded Ukraine, how many people voted for Joe Biden, or, heck, even how many people live in your hometown. The fact is that you rely on other people - whether it’s scientists, medical researchers, reporters, election workers, or U.S. Census Bureau officials - to tell you stuff. In almost all of modern life, you must choose whether to believe what other people are telling you or not. You must decide whom to trust to give you reliable information about the world.
I often see in news articles and online that there is “evidence” or “no evidence” for this or that. But often the “evidence” is simply what people are saying. The obvious, republic-shaking example here is the 2020 election results. I can only believe that Joe Biden won because a bunch of people whom I choose to trust are saying it’s so. On Trump’s side, a (much smaller) bunch of people continue to say the opposite.
Now, these two “truths” are very different, of course. On Biden’s side, we have a huge variety of truth-tellers with what appears to be a variety of motivations. Many self-identified Republicans in positions of authority say Trump lost the election. In places like Georgia and Arizona, multiple recounts and audits have not changed the results there. Many courts, some led by Trump-appointed judges, have said the Trump election claims don’t have merit. There’s a huge variety of speakers.
On Trump’s side, we have Trump and a handful of close supporters. And again, as we know from the CBS News/YouGov poll, that’s good enough for many Trump voters.
Let’s take this a step further. To believe in Biden’s victory, you have to accept the word of a variety of people from across the country who have studied the results closely - many of who had motivations, it appears, as Republicans, to want Trump to get re-elected.
To believe in Trump’s victory, you have to assume that this great variety of people is lying, all in a grand conspiracy to block Trump specifically. Many people in this country actually do believe this.
Notice that in both of these stories, “evidence” is beside the point. I can’t really judge the evidence. I can only judge the people who are speaking and choose to trust in them.
None of this is good, classical reasoning. After all, we’re told that ad hominem attacks are bad reasoning. In other words, we should judge arguments (and evidence), rather than the people making them. However, many times, we have to engage in “reverse” ad hominem reasoning - accepting the people first, before the argumentation and evidence.
This goes against everything I was ever taught about how to come by reliable knowledge, so it makes me uncomfortable to admit this simple reality.
“Evidence” isn’t the slam dunk we want it to be. Trust is in short supply in our society. Truth remains hard. And that, in turn, has put our republic in a hard spot.