Certainty

I don’t like the last few blogs I wrote and I’ve been trying to figure out why I wrote them. It’s not that I disagree with what I said, but that they bring up polarizing issues, and when that happens, they detract from the main point I’m trying to make. But what was that point?

I now realized what that point was, what other people have been saying and doing that bothers me. It’s the absolute (or nearly) certainty that people have in those situations I listed. It’s not that people don’t believe doctors; after all, they’re fallible humans too. It’s that fear, extreme negative perceptions, the hatred, and it’s that certainty that people have in their own perceptions that scares me. The unchangeable view that their negative impression of someone else must be correct, even when that negative view is extreme and there are less negative but reasonable possibilities, and that it’s OK to act on that negativity despite the consequences. That people around you really are as bad as you think they are.

Of course everyone must have some acceptable level of certainty to make a decision. But it doesn’t need to be absolute, and when people act like it is, it scares me. How can our perceptions ever be absolute? We’re not perfect, we all have flaws in our logic and understanding, we all lack some information, and it’s something we all have to learn to live with. Denial isn’t a healthy way to deal with anything, let alone our own flaws.

When that denial is applied to negative reactions to and impressions of others, we risk hurting those others. Are people really OK with that, with letting ourselves think so highly of our own interpretations that we allow ourselves to hurt others, even when there’s no benefit to ourselves? In situations of crime and justice, we have to make decisions that ultimately do hurt one person or another. But we incorporate the concept of “reasonable doubt” and “innocent until proven guilty” to protect hurting more people than necessary. I’ve heard many people say it’s unfortunate our justice system has these principles, and they confuse wanting justice with wanting revenge, wanting to take out their anger on anyone even suspected of wrong doing. That certainty that they know the truth and that they would risk harming innocents to get to it…the certainty that they know who is innocent and who is not, that there are global conspiracies waiting to harm them…is frightening.

Over a year ago I saw the movie Doubt. The subject and setting for this movie is not typically something I care for in movies, but this one left a big, positive impression on me. Whether or not the priest was a pedophile is not made clear, and that’s a significant point of the story. What happened is left up to the characters and the viewers to determine (and everyone who’s seen it seems to have a different interpretation of what went on), and it’s up to the other characters to decide what, if anything, to do. And yet, even at the end, when everyone’s made their decisions and reacted the way they saw best, there’s still the acknowledgement that they could be mistaken, and it’s clear their decisions were not made easily.

That’s what’s important to me. The recognition that when you accuse someone of wrongdoing or evil, you’re not infallible and you could be hurting an innocent person, the recognition that other interpretations are valid, not just your own. Making a decision may be necessary, but it’s not a decision people should make quickly or lightly, and certainty shouldn’t come purely from gut feeling.

It is innocent until proven guilty, right?

I was planning on not using this blog to respond to things in the news, since there’s plenty of that out there, and I don’t see the point in just stating my opinion on a topic. But I guess working out my feelings about people, society, etc, means I have to use real examples. And I do have a related personal story that I’m still angry about wanted to talk about anyway.

I’m really disturbed by people’s reactions to this Casey Anthony not guilty verdict. I don’t mean people “out there”, but friends and people I know well, or somewhat well. I don’t like to comment on trials and such because I feel it’s not up to me to judge. I’m not in the courtroom, hearing the different sides, the testimonies, the evidence, etc. I usually do have an opinion, as I would imagine most people do, and I keep up with trials to see if my opinions and the justice system match up, but it’s not like my opinion counts for much. This case, though, I don’t really have an opinion; the evidence is weak, the story is weird, the defendant is weird, so I have nothing to say about it, and it’s not really my job to have a say anyway. The only reason I’ve even been following it is because of the reactions of people I know.

It seems to me that so many people are convinced she’s guilty because her behavior is not what you’d expect from someone who’s child died. She didn’t go to police right away, gave really strange explanations, did strange things…but personally, I have no idea what kind of behavior is normal in a situation like that! It’s not like many of us are familiar with people losing young children. I think we see it on TV quite often in crime shows, but TV can’t even accurately portray drowning, never mind more complex behaviors like grief or guilt. So seeing someone judge another because their behavior isn’t what they think it should be even though they probably know as little about psychology as I do really upsets me.

Seeing people act on their ignorance is worse.

When I was in high school, I had 3 guy friends who were really close. One was moving a few weeks after the school year started, so the other two decided, as a tribute to him, they would dress like him until he moved. Unfortunately, the friend’s regular outfit was a black trenchcoat, and he was moving September 10, 2002. I went to high school in one of those small towns that realistically, had little to fear from terrorists, but was so sure of the town’s importance and significance, that officials were convinced there was a real threat everywhere. My friends did not think this plan through.

These 3 were, in many ways, the typical anime geeks of the late 90s, early 2000s. No one outside of anime fans knew anything about it, and the level of expressed weirdness and fandom was certainly new to school officials. We were accused of watching porn in Anime Club, and this was to be expected. On top of that, their other friends were what I considered the end of “goth” before people started calling wearing all black “emo”. These terms meant little to me, and probably to those teens as well, but were undeniably obvious. One guy had a tattoo on his face and pieced his own eyebrow with a safety pin while in class (and his teacher didn’t even notice). But many teens in this group were just more of the typical “unable to fit in” group…they also wore a lot of black, shopped at Hot Topic, were regular members of Anime Club, liked to hang out at the nearby bookstore and read comics and manga without paying for them (until they eventually were kicked out), but on the whole, they were nice people who were just a little strange (a lot less strange than they looked). From what I saw, they mostly just wanted to find a way to express themselves as different from the rich, popular kids at the school. They thought the coats made them look cool, like Neo from The Matrix. I was unaware of any drug use, certainly never in school. Unlike some honors students.

I was an honors student, I think the only one who associated with this group. I didn’t dress like them (much) or spend a whole lot of time around them, and I think that protected me from what happened next. A girl who I had been friends with a few years before started telling people these guys were going to bomb the school. I don’t know what kind of sick person she was to think of spreading this lie, but it obviously, and understandably, lead to some school officials panicking. For the whole week this went on, school was not cancelled, and I don’t think most students or parents even knew what was going on. But the police went to house of every person these guys associated with and searched it. Except me. Why? I have no idea, and have to wonder if it’s because I was a “good” student living in a good neighborhood, with wealthy-looking parents. The other ~15 students? Not so much. They were average-poor students often from either poor or not-so-great families. The police didn’t have warrants, but no one turned them away. And surprise, surprise, the police found absolutely nothing! So that should have been the end of it right? No! The reason the police were called was because of one Assistant Principal (we had I think 4). When the rumors started, the 3 guys went to one of the other Assistant Principals to tell her what was going on and that they were concerned. She believed them, but did nothing to help. The first assit. principal was not convinced, even after the police found nothing, and actually had the school officers arrests the guys one the morning before classes started! Before they could be taken out of the school, another friend yelled at the officers, telling them they had no right to arrest the guys for no reason other than someone’s paranoia, and the officers let the guys go. Within the next few days, the one friend moved, but the assistant principal still wasn’t satisfied and went through their files to find a way to transfer the remaining 2 to another school. He temporarily succeeded for one because they had the wrong address on record, but that was straightened out by the guys’ parents/grandparents. So the assistant principal declared black a “gang color” and banned it, along with all piercings, even ones that weren’t noticeable, like tongue and belly button piercings (but refused to grandfather in students who already had them).

A number of the students dropped out of school, even one who was a senior, because they felt the school official were either indifferent or out to get them. Which they were. No one ever asked why my friends dressed like that. No one ever looked into who started the rumors.

That year’s prom, the remaining guys and one girl who went were thoroughly searched with a metal detector by the Principal himself. Maybe they should have spent more time searching the rich, honors students who snuck in bottles of alcohol and all got drunk. The valedictorian was still allowed to be valedictorian even though the rules expressly said she could not be after that.

So when I hear people judging other’s behaviors, I don’t like it one bit. It scares me to think so many people, people who I know!, think that someone doing something strange, even if it is stupid, is automatically a sign of guilt, and that people in power can act on this ignorance and do harm. Do I think the woman’s guilty? I have no idea at all. But it gives me some hope that at least a jury can put aside personal feelings about “correct” behavior and look at what evidence they actually have, even in such horrible situations as one where a child dies.

Who needs experts?

Why do people seem to trust pseudoscience, like claims that tumors are really a fungus, yet not believe that scientists and doctors can easily tell the difference between a human cell and a fungal cell? (and that they could too if they simply learned how to use a microscope?) Why do they believe in conspiracies that say mainstream American cancer treatment is part of a eugenics program to breed perfect people from wealthy American bloodlines, yet forget that cancer research is global and people outside the US would have noticed by now if everything known about cancer was a lie? Are we as a country that self-centered? Why do people think they can pick and choose which experts to believe and which to not, or which information FROM THE SAME EXPERTS to accept and which to reject? Climatologists, geologist, earth scientist, etc. are correct when they say the climate changed a lot in the past, but they’re wrong when they say it’s changing now? Or they’re correct about the causes of climate change in the past, but not now? Why do they think they know more than people who’ve spent years studying a topic or field? Why do people think reading a few blogs or popular science books on any topic is all it takes to really understand something? Why do people think ignoring information they don’t like is the best way to deal with it - “I went to a museum and refused to look at the exhibits I disagree with, so I have no idea what information they gave, but I’m sure they’re wrong!” (I have a friend who refused to look at museum exhibits on early humans so she could continue to deny what was there).  Why do the people who claim science “indoctrinates” rather than teaches critical thinking, who have never learned science in the first place, have so much power over how science is used and taught?  Why is being educated associated with “elitism” and educated people so distrusted to know even their own field? Do we have some kind of phobia of education? Why do people distrust authorities (experts, not something like police) in general? Sure people can misuse information for their own gain, but certainly people can misuse ignorance as well (see above examples, esp. the tumor=fungus because they’re a similar color), and what reason is there to believe experts are likely to manipulate others with their knowledge anyway? Do we just fear each other that much? (I think I’ll get into this idea later)

By all means, think for yourself, figure out what makes sense and what doesn’t, be skeptical (not cynical), and figure out what’s useful and what isn’t. Science isn’t about blindly believing everything an expert tells you, but about being able to critically assess things for yourself. But there is an element of trust in your fellow human beings necessary. You can’t know everything, it would be unreasonable to even try, but you should be able to assess whether a person knows what they’re talking about based on more than just if you like what they have to say or not. People different from yourself are not monsters. If the information you accept always conforms to what you already think and never challenges you to change your position or even really think about it, there might be a problem. No one is that perfectly knowledgeable about the world.

I wasn't going to put this entry up yet, but I read this article http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622 and the contrast of this exerpt:

"This time, the scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged 'unequivocal.'"

with the comments left simply denying the information above pushed me to post it now.

The Scientific Method 2

(If you know who I'm talking about, the timing's a strange, unfortunate coincidence...I wrote this weeks ago)

Two years ago, I was told that atheists (read: non-Christians/Jews) can’t be moral because (Christian/Jewish) God gave people morals, so if you don’t believe in (Christian/Jewish) God, you can’t possibly have them. I’m going to use this statement to illustrate how the scientific method is useful in non-science applications and well as support my claim that beliefs are proposed hypotheses (either because they can’t be supported for lack of information*, haven’t yet been supported, or have been found to be unsupported but are accepted anyway). This is not meant to be a value assessment of beliefs—everyone has them and they can serve important purposes, especially in areas that can’t be supported or refuted—just a clarification of what beliefs are, as well as a demonstration of the value of a scientific-minded perspective.

(*”information” as I'm using it here refers to physical world data that can be gathered or discovered by or shown to any and all relevant parties. I may need to come back to this idea about what is information later.)

The Scientific Method:

Initial Observations and Question/Problem

Hypothesis         ß----------------------------------

Experiment                                                      |

Results/Analysis                                             |

Conclusion: Accept or Reject Hypothesis ___|

Share Findings

Observations and Question:

A philosophical/ethical question with real world implications: The Bible says morality comes from God; what does this mean for Christians and non Christians?

(Whether or not is it true that the Bible says this doesn’t really matter. This is the understanding of the person who began the following thought, and I will accept it since this is not intended to be a Theology discussion. As I hope I’ll show, the outcome should be the same whether this information is correct or not because it’s not what is being evaluated.)

Using logic, a good idea, especially in philosophy where things often can’t be tested: If morals came from God, and a person doesn’t believe in God, then can they believe in the things or be influenced by things that come from God?

Hypothesis:

These are what the Scientific Method is evaluating, and all alternatives or testable possibilities should be clear:

H1: No, they cannot (implicit: Only Christians can have morals).  (This is as far as the initiator of this thought got, it is her belief)

H2: Yes they can (implicit: Anyone can have the same morals).

Experiment:

Do research: Read various philosophy/ethics texts from different points of view, go back to see what more the Bible has to say, survey/talk to people about their morality/views, observe how people behave/treat each other.

Results/Analysis:

Ethics has been an important concern in all cultures, not just Christian ones, for as far back as we have texts to read, and many have had similarities in their moral codes, even if they believe in a different god.

Bible talks about the “good Samaritan”

Most people care about being good to each other, but be careful with phasing of questions, and be sure you’ve interacted with a random sample of people (ie: you aren’t focusing on people clearly on the fringe or only belonging to one group)

Most people act reasonably nice to each other (be careful with using news sources for observation, they tend to focus only on the negative)

Conclusion:

Non-Christians show evidence of being ethical (note that this says nothing about why that is): H1 rejected, H2 accepted. We often call this a “belief” for lack of a better word, but an accepted hypothesis is fundamentally different from a proposed hypothesis because it is a conclusion reached using all relevant and available information. It is not set in stone, but it can come close if there is little to no known information refuting it. (“Available” meaning accessible within reason: it is not reasonable for an average person to travel all over the world interviewing people for something like this, but it is reasonable to talk to friends or go to the library)

Share Findings:

Now you may use this information when interacting with people, sharing opinions, philosophizing, or talking about your views.

Where the person who made the initial claim went wrong: She treated her reasoning (Observation) as the Experiment/Results and her Hypothesis (H1) as the Conclusion, and so when she shared her perspective, it came out insulting and ignorant because she was lacking information about non-Jews/Christians’ behaviors and ideas. Reasoning is an important part of the Results/Analysis step, but people need to incorporate all available information and can’t skip over steps or leave out obvious sources of information. Observing people’s behavior and interacting with them is easily done, a part of daily life, really (assuming you’re not antisocial) and requires no special skills, so there is no reason not to use that form of information gathering. Even if her thought process had followed a Scientific Method-style of thinking based solely on her initial understanding and nothing else, further observations should have conflicted with her only hypothesis (H1), prompting her to reject it and go back to the beginning and start over, incorporating any new information from the initial Experiment step. You can’t stop and ignore all new information once you reach a conclusion because you can’t know everything; the Scientific Method is unending. And, fortunately, none of this should threaten her religious views because it does not deny that God gave people morality – It doesn’t address where morality comes from at all. Her exact interpretation of what that means for *other* people may need to change, but she herself does not need to, except to be a little more open minded and nicer to others.

Of course, no one I hope actually goes step by step like this outside of science, where every part of the process must be clearly spelled out for others to follow and hopefully find acceptable as well. It would be entirely too tedious to do this for everyday interactions and understandings; we’re not attempting to contribute to the general knowledge of the world in our daily interpersonal reactions - we don’t need that level of rigor. Instead, my purpose here is to demonstrate the importance of recognizing where your understanding of something falls in relation to available information, when you need and can easily find more information, the limitations of your own knowledge, and present a systematic way to do that. A good understanding of the Scientific Method can allow a person to incorporate it into his/her way of accessing and interacting with the world.