I posted this article, by Timothy Ferris, on Facebook. It triggered an extensive discussion with a few friends who had differing opinions.
The gist of the article is simple. There are ideas. Some of them become ideologies. There are facts. Some ideas and ideologies are in consonance with facts. Others are not and may, indeed, have been disproved by facts. Those ideas that are supported by facts are true. Those that are not are either speculative or false. There are “intellectuals” who are so wedded to their ideas that, even in the face of facts that contradict them, they continue to hold on to those ideas in the form of “ideologies”. To resolve the cognitive dissonance that arises from facts that are obviously at odds with their ideologies, they concoct the notion that there is no such thing as an objective fact.
That’s basically what the writer was trying to convey.
The tendency to portray reality as a subjective phenomenon is not uncommon. Unfortunately, even if you write a whole book on philosophy where the average length of each word is seventeen letters, you can’t change facts. They exist. Objectively. And if they happen to contradict your ideas, it is your ideas that have to change. Because facts will not.
I find it very hard to understand the concept of subjective reality thrown about by “intellectuals” whose ideas have been clearly refuted by hard facts. No one denies that ideas are essential and that they provide the inspiration for change. Ideas are often the source of efforts that lead to progress and welfare. However, ideas can be said to “work” only when they are supported by facts.
I may have an idea that “thought travel” may be possible. I may believe that the “energy” of “thought waves” can be used to transport people from, say, Singapore to New York. For all I know, at some point of time in the future, that may even happen if we discover things about the mind we currently do not know. But, today, no one (I hope) will accept that the idea “works” unless I can demonstrate that it can happen. And if people laugh at the notion, I cannot hope to convince them by saying that just by imagining that I am in New York, I am actually in New York, in the “reality” that is subjective to me and, therefore, “thought travel” works.
There is an independent, objective, benchmark against which things can be compared to determine whether they are true or false. In this case, if, even after hours of intense concentration, I am still physically in Singapore, my idea that “thought travel” is possible cannot be considered to be true. There is no point in my getting “offended”, upset or angry if someone criticizes my idea as a pipedream. If I can’t prove it, they have every right to dismiss my idea as nonsense.
Contrast this with another idea. I may believe that tossing a porcelain vase off the top of a skyscraper may cause it to shatter into several pieces. If someone were to write a harshly worded opinion piece calling this idea of mine as “infantile”, “ridiculous” or “stupid”, I wouldn’t get “offended”, upset or angry. I am more likely to laugh at the person who challenged my idea and, perhaps, even feel sympathy towards him because he probably needs help. That’s because I can easily demonstrate that this idea of mine is “true”. I know that it is a fact.
It is only when I cannot prove the veracity of my idea, when I experience severe cognitive dissonance due to the objective reality that unequivocally contradicts the notion inside my head, that any criticism of that notion causes emotional discomfort. And to alleviate that discomfort, I may seek to silence the person who is criticizing the idea or fall back to the notion of “subjective reality”.
The history of the world provides innumerable examples of ideas and ideologies that have worked, and those that have not.
Only if you are open to evidence that represents objective reality, a reality that you don’t seek to deny, will you be able to change your mind. Denial of objective reality is just a psychological defense mechanism adopted by those who wish to retain their dogmas and avoid having to change their minds. Those who are genuinely open-minded will understand that ideas can be said to “work” only if they are substantiated by facts.
As John Maynard Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?”
0 comments:
Post a Comment