Intellectual Inquiry: The Process of Knowing Truth

 

Intellectual Inquiry: The Process of Knowing Truth

Social media has changed the paradigm of intellectual inquiry in the world today. People have a platform to speak but sadly, they often do so without a proper understanding of the process of “truth-seeking”.  A lot of people claim "bias" from sources because those sources consistently tout the same message (arrive at a predictable outcome from the facts presented). But is bias present?  It certainly COULD be true that bias is present, but not necessarily so. Also possible is that a source of information that always reaches similar conclusions (i.e. a “conservative” or “liberal” position on some social issue) is employing proven methods of evidence analysis, and the reader who claim bias is just unhappy with those conclusions.  

It is good to question sources as the first step in analyzing the facts.  Source of information usually have some kind of motivation than can influence the presentation of the facts. Nowhere is this more necessary right now than with the Coronavirus pandemic. People cannot make informed decisions if the information being disseminated is factually incorrect, ambiguous, or contradictory. In the recent (2020) presidential election, the availability of accurate facts was often missing during election speeches (no surprise there).  All too common is when a proponent of a particular political/social position just flat-out lies to mark their political position and influence voters in their direction. In a recent debate between vice-president Pence and Kamala Harris, Pence challenged Harris’s statements as being factually incorrect. He said, ' You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts'.  Phrased another way, Pence’s comment says, “You may interpret facts to reach a desired conclusion, but you cannot just make up stuff and call it a fact”.

Sometimes (often?) a source (of particularly, political information) almost never is factually correct, nor are their conclusions supported by the facts in evidence. On the other hand, the source alone does not validate, or invalidate, the truth of evidence. As with the old saying that even a broken clock is right at least twice a day, some sources of political commentary must certainly be right once in awhile, else they would eventually lose all credibility. Just because a fact is asserted by a particular biased source, and a conclusion is drawn from that fact (or facts), it doesn’t automatically mean that the information is incorrect.  It does mean that the truth-seeker owes a duty of due diligence to determine the veracity of the claim.

By definition, EVIDENCE is any fact which tends to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Facts from a source MAY be true but irrelevant.  Or the facts might accurate but interpreted or "twisted" in a way that supports one conclusion over another. THAT is where we often find bias in a claim.

When people post on social media that they avoid any evidence from a source known for its bias, that is itself a form of bias. It produces a stream of thought that ONLY supports preconceptions- the opposite of an "open mind" (which surprisingly, is the attribute those very same people claim to possess.)  In 2 Timothy 4:3 we read about this kind of person: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but having itching ears, they shall heap to themselves teachers in accordance with their own lusts.”  We see it all around us- people who ONLY listen to preachers (or politicians) whose words affirm what the hearer wants to hear.  Yet that will not lead us to truth. In 2 Tmonthy 3:7 we see that this condition of the human sprit has been around a long time because even then there people who disregard anything that didn’t conform to their preconceptions. These were “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

Intellectual inquiry demands that any fact offered into evidence be first examined for its integrity. Then , if true, the fact must be evaluated for its relevance.  Then, if true and relevant, does it "tend to prove the truth of the matter asserted?" Only then does a fact become "evidence”, but your work is not done yet. You must "weigh" the evidence to determine some measure of probability that the conclusions drawn from that evidence are the correct conclusions. Often, facts may be true, but may support alternative conclusions. The inquirer who stops when the facts affirm the position the investigator seeks, is NOT a good investigator.  In criminal law, a good investigator anticipates the probing questions of a defense lawyer, and then is able to provide the DA with the evidence to overcome those objections or inquiries.  Good investigators, and good DA’s make the world a safer place.  Luke, the Gospel writer says it this way: ”Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”  Luke 1:3-4

The quest for truth is more difficult that many people realize.  We must train ourselves to go through these investigative processes before we allow ourselves to be convinced that we are truly “open-minded” truth seekers. Otherwise, we are every bit as biased as the people (sources) that we love to castigate on social media.

John Sterling. MA, JD

November 21, 2020