The previous two posts have got me thinking about how much
we think we know for which, in fact, we really have little or no solid,
reliable supporting evidence.
Good scientists are always aware of how much they don’t know,
and are always aware that even what they are pretty certain about is probably
at best just an approximation to the real world, which is probably far too
complex for a human mind to understand fully. But good scientists are and
always have been pretty thin on the ground; there are a lot of people in white
coats with PhDs who don’t really understand the scientific method very well.
Religions, of course, are a classic example of believing
without evidence. People believe all sorts of things, even patently absurd
things, just because some religious “authority” told them so (probably when
they were young and impressionable). Indeed, religions make a virtue of “faith”
– believing without evidence.
Much of history is a fabrication, as any good historian
knows. It is always biased, selective, shaped by winners, embellished in the
telling, viewed through the cultural assumptions of (a) the writers and (b) the
reader. There are a number of good books on the common historical fallacies
still taught today in most classrooms, and one can be sure these are just the tip
of the iceberg. Of course it is often
hard to find solid evidence about events that happened long ago, but it is
amazing how many fallacies are still believed even when there is solid evidence
to contradict them.
Political ideologies, both left and right, tend to be based
on assumptions with little or no supporting evidence. Which is why so many
political programs end up being ineffective, if not downright
counter-productive. And it always amazes me that when evidence does accumulate
that a policy isn’t working, it makes no difference at all to those who believe
in the policy (throwing more and more money at America public education is a case
in point).
Big business seems to be particularly susceptible to
evidence-free “fads” marketed by slick salespeople. Zero defects, six sigma,
ISO9000, etc, etc, etc ad nausium. Oh, there is always anecdotal evidence given
to support the claims of these processes, but precious little hard evidence. These are almost as prevalent as the
evidence-free diet fads that continually sweep the nation.
I suppose it is not surprising that so few people understand
either the importance of hard evidence in shaping their beliefs, or the sort of
critical skepticism that is needed to assess the strength and validity of evidence
when it is offered. It is not a natural human trait, and takes serious training
and study to achieve. Still, I often
wonder at the amazing credulity we humans so often display.
Posts
