Modus Operandi

Op-ed

Socratic Wisdom in a Post-Truth Era: Examining Unjustified Belief Adherence 

by Shane Reid

In a world of increasing polarization and information echo chambers, belief acquisition is becoming less independent and more dependent on groupthink and political alliances. When faced with uncertain political decisions, we rely on our respective political party to tell us how to think and how to vote. Consulting primary sources is a thing of the past, and now our only news sources are filtered through layer upon layer of personal and political bias. The gap in knowledge between what the general populous knows versus what is known at the outer rim of academia continues to widen. Public representatives are hired primarily not for their administrative expertise, but for how many handshakes they have given with men and women in suits wearing the same lapel pin.

One of the most surprising features of this new landscape is the frequency with which people holding opposing views talk past each other. Two political candidates debating taxes, for example, often get lost in the various nuances of policy and wealth distribution. They are unable to find common ground, precisely because they have fundamentally different economic dispositions to begin with – one more laissez-faire capitalistic and the other more liberal socialistic. These fundamental differences of value prevent anyone from being willing to change their mind even when they are presented with convincing facts that point in a different direction.

Consider the study conducted by the psychologist, Mark Levine, where he demonstrated that people feel more of a responsibility to help each other if they are a part of the same group. In one study, Manchester United fans were placed in a situation where they could help a stranger in pain (Levine et al., 2005). When the stranger wore a Jersey supporting Liverpool (their rival), only 30% of Manchester fans lent a helping hand, but when the stranger was wearing a Manchester United jersey, the number jumped to 92%! Because of herd mentality, something as trivial as sports allegiance caused a difference in moral action. If this is true, imagine how political allegiance can swerve people from choosing objectively the public policy that maximizes utility and fundamental rights when their political party happens to be pushing them one way or another. When it comes to social group membership, the line between collective action and coerced action appears to be very fine.

Our presuppositions about reality determine our derivative beliefs. Unfortunately, we are not perfect logical operators who are capable of acting on each individual decision that maximizes the utility for all whom are concerned. We must depend on a predetermined set of core values, which are gross probabilities that help us to weigh the desirability of thousands of tertiary actions. Every derivative conclusion we come to contains at least one premise of our fundamental beliefs. Therefore, no matter how logical someone is, if they hold the wrong presuppositions about reality, they will come to the wrong conclusions. One challenging question remains: What is the corrective for the relative error probability that our fundamental presuppositions about reality are wrong, even if our perception is influenced by those very beliefs?

The only relief to this problem is radical and systematic doubt, i.e., being critical and reflective about the things that most people take for granted. Perhaps we need not go as far as René Descartes with his method of doubt that had him deconstructing the very foundations of knowledge, and like Icarus, flying incredibly close to the sun of skepticism.

What is deeply needed in this climate of polarized discourse and political associations is the epistemic humility and courage to independently re-examine even our most cherished beliefs and values. How can we boldly follow the truth wherever it leads if we are contained within information silos that already reflect back our same beliefs? How can we engage in civil conversation with an interlocutor of an opposing view if we are unwilling to dig into the root of the issue? Only once we have practiced letting go of all of our presuppositions may we pick up again only those positive beliefs which have a certain threshold of certainty and belief-clearance. The Danish philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard, once remarked, "What the world really needs, confused as it is by much learning, is a new Socrates."

Works Cited

Levine M., Prosser A., Evans D, Stephen D & Reicher S, (2005). “Identity and Emergency Intervention: How Social Group Membership and Inclusiveness of Group Boundaries Shape Helping Behavior,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 31 no. 4, 443-453.