Truth, strike two

[ciphergoth]

Thanks for some interesting and surprising responses to the JFK question. At the risk of creating more heat than light, let me try another example, one that I think might be a little less comfortable to be neutral about.

It seems that many people believe that on the morning of September 11, 2001, four thousand or more Israelis who were working at the World Trade Center did not show up for work.

Are those people wrong?

(Update: amended as per ajva's caveat)

Comments

[some-fox.livejournal.com]

Thinking about this a lot (still with ouchy brain) I think that the problem is that (1) is on a long continuum depending on the kind of thing we're talking about. There are probably some things in the world which there are clear correct and incorrect views on. There are also things where there are probably correct and incorrect views but it is extremely hard to verify which is correct or incorrect (without time machines, telepathy or other things we haven't invented yet). There are things which are a matter of personal truth (one person's lived experience being very different to anothers). And there are things where there is no real truth but it depends on your perspective (social/cultural/historically constructed things). There are probably also some quite fuzzy boundaries between these different categories (and perhaps further categories I haven't thought of). Also quite frequently when it comes to human behaviour I think the question of whether something is useful or not useful may be more useful (in itself) than whether it is correct or incorrect.

Keeping this in mind I would approach (2) with caution. Personally speaking I would appreciate people challenging me if they felt what I believed was wrong, and certainly if they felt what I believed wasn't useful. However I find that telling people that they are wrong Incredibly Seldom results in any kind of positive outcome. Often it makes them cling much more strongly to their belief. Frequently it belittles them and makes them feel stupid, decreasing their self confidence. It may well result in them engaging even less in critical thought.

What I try to do in my counselling, teaching and in general really (with more or less success!) is to get people engaging critically themselves with their beliefs and opinions. I think it is more powerful and empowering generally to encourage people to take the space to challenge their own ideas.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

This all makes sense; there's another category for things like "the causes of the Great Depression" where even a time machine, telepathy etc don't suffice to settle all arguments, but some explanations can I think still be wrong. I wouldn't use the phrase "personal truth" myself because I tend to reserve the word "truth" for the things that are not personal in that way.

I agree that bluntly telling people they're wrong is often not the most persuasive way forward, though I think there are exceptions. However, Whether or not it is effective evangelism is a separate question from whether it can have a sound philosophical foundation, and it's only the latter I want to establish here.

[lovingboth]

Some things like that will always be up for debate. The causes of the First World War is another good example (in a way that 'the First World War happened' isn't) and anyone who writes on it needs to acknowledge that, in the manner of the BBC advertising its own products, 'other explanations exist'.

What pissed me off immensely at THT was that some people were not open to a discussion about some things. I don't mind people being wrong - I am sometimes - but I do mind them objecting to being challenged about their work in any way.

(Curiously, the blunter approach was the one that got a couple of meetings to happen.)

(Catching up)

[jhg.livejournal.com]

Agreed - asking pertinent questions makes people re-examine their beliefs a lot better.

It's finding the, ah, 'right' questions to ask that's the trick...