tt.humanist :: forum :: articles :: baldeosingh :: philosophy

The Seeker of Truth

Kevin Baldeosingh • 25 November 1999 • 815 words

"It is for this reason that people are both too open-minded and too close-minded - open when searching for beliefs that make them psychologically comfortable, closed when they find those (usually sparse and simplistic) ideas."

Most people are not interested in truth. That is why people usually choose their beliefs, not according to how much sense they make, but how well they fit the person's prejudices. Those ideas which make an individual uncomfortable, or insecure, or which do not advance his status, are usually dismissed as untrue.

The difference between genius and normal intelligence may well be rooted in the willingness to deal with uncomfortable ideas or conclusions. When Darwin was in the field, he put down in his notebook everything that seemed to contradict his theory of evolution. "If I did not, I would tend to forget the contradictory evidence, since what stays in the mind is whatever we find most agreeable," he wrote.

And, describing how he developed his Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein noted: "All attempts to clarify this paradox [of pursuing a beam of light at its own speed but observing it as if it were at rest, which is impossible] were condemned to failure as long as the axiom of the absolute character of time, viz., simultaneity, was anchored in the unconscious."

This does not mean, however, that ordinary people are irrational. Psychologist Bernard J. Baars, author of In The Theater of Consciousness, explains, "People are wonderfully sensitive to accurate reasoning and reality when they are provided with rapid and accurate consequences. We do not walk into table and walls; and we are remarkably successful hunters, weavers, gatherers, cooks, spinners, farmers and engineers...But wherever we cannot obtain clear reality feedback we seem to spin beliefs that are contradictory, idiosyncratic and fantastical...Our self-proclaimed title of Homo sapiens, the wise or discerning human, is surely a hope rather than reality. Most of the time we are only Homo credens, the species that needs to believe as much as it needs to breathe."

It is for this reason that people are both too open-minded and too close-minded - open when searching for beliefs that make them psychologically comfortable, closed when they find those (usually sparse and simplistic) ideas. Whatever its apparent moral virtue, open-mindedness is quite inadequate as a method of discovering truth. Indeed, the problem with many people today is not that they are too close-minded, but far too open-minded. Tell them about the wonders of evolution or quantum mechanics or neurology, and they will look at you with utmost scepticism. But speak to them about people levitating or talking to the dead or materialising objects out of thin air, and they are all agog.

Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker and a steadfast enemy of superstition, puts it well: "By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out." Open-mindedness without criticism often facilitates wrongs. To be open-minded may mean respecting other's beliefs but, carried to its logical extreme, it also means respecting the beliefs of people who want to marry 14-year-old girls, kill thieves with pitbulls, or preach that using condoms is sinful.

The person who is genuinely interested in truth - and such a person belongs to the smallest minority on the planet - is not open-minded, but critical-minded. A critically-minded person initially treats all ideas with suspicion (without adopting the absurd philosophical scepticism which claims that facts can never be truly known). In order to decide whether an idea or claim is reliable, there are three basic tests the intelligent layperson can apply.

First, he must ask: Is the idea/claim logical? Second, he must find out about the expertise behind the idea/claim, asking: Does the individual or group making the claim have the qualifications to support his assertion? What do the other experts/opposing groups say about the claim? Third, he must apply an ad hominem judgement: Is the individual or group's reputation trustworthy? A critically-minded person takes everything with a pinch of salt. (If, however, somebody like Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj is involved, he purchases a pound.)

In the modern world, it is impossible to build a stable, progressive society without a critical approach to problems, whether economic, social or political. It is this truth which Bertrand Russell had in mind when he wrote: "Many may contend that, even if the systems men have invented are untrue, they are harmless and comforting, and should be left undisturbed. But they are in fact not harmless, and the comfort they bring is dearly bought by the preventable misery which they lead men to tolerate...The search for a happiness based upon untrue beliefs is neither very noble nor very glorious...No man is liberated from fear who dare not see his place in the world as it is; no man can achieve the greatness of which he is capable until he has allowed himself to see his own littleness."