From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Aug 31 2002 - 02:46:14 MDT
Jeff Davis writes
> --- spike66 <spike66@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> I don't see how we can ever find out what really
> happened in the 20th century, for all the accounts
> seem to have some slant or spin. How can we get to
> the truth, assuming that term "truth" as applied to
> history, has some absolute meaning? Are we not always
> simply reading someone's propaganda?
It seems to me that almost always the truth is obtained
after enough decades. What was very controversial about
the USSR in the 1920's is not controversial at all now.
What was controversial about the United Fruit Company's
messing around in Central American politics is not
controversial now. Unfortunately, most of the current
generation has to die off before the controversy is
settled; my liberal friend's father went to his grave
about 1980 still believing that Joseph Stalin was a
hero, and that everything negative about him was CIA
invention.
I hope that that does not mean that some of these
controversies will, as you fear, never be settled
because too many of us live forever!? Well, that's
a small price to pay, actually, if we live :-)
Jeff writes
> We all develop our own methods of finding the truth,
> but much of this process seems informal, unstructured,
> left to chance. I've often heard it said that
> "Schools don't teach critical thinking." This is a
> statement near to the issue. Philosophy as a
> discipline is nearby as well. But what and where is
> the (modern) "Science of Truthology"? Who are it's
> foremost authorities, present and historical; where
> the collected body of knowledge; what the standard
> curriculum?
I don't think that we need schools to teach us to be
skeptical thinkers. So far as I can see, one is born
to it (or not). I would be appalled at a "Science of
Truthology" as much as I would a "Ministry of Truth",
or Minitruth to use Orwell's phrase (I think).
> Now, back to our regularly scheduled program...
> =========================
>
> IT'S NOT THAT HARD!!! Mostly, you need to get out of
> your own way.
>
> First, you have to be fair minded. You need at least
> some willingness to hold in abeyance the biases
> implanted during your tender years. After that, it's
> right there in front of you.
I doubt that it's so easy as you imply to "hold in
abeyance" all your biases. For a decade or more you
have been selectively filtering what you believe.
There even comes a time, I submit, where it's even
very *difficult* to understand *facts* that don't
fit your view of the world. Literally: I might
have a very hard time remembering a reliable account
given of a psychic medium channeling Winston Churchill.
> Find someone you trust (a diversity of trusted help is
> good; back-ups, second opinions, and other
> perspectives; and you'll want to reverify their
> trustworthiness on a regular basis)--as for instance I
> trust C*****y. If your **really** cynical--you trust
> no one--then you'll have to go back to the source
> documents.
I automatically distrust Chomsky as much or more than
I would Oliver North. They each have too much at stake.
They each would *obviously* select and edit only that
which makes their particular axe easier to grind. How
could it possibly be otherwise?
The dead giveaway is when a narration contains absolutely
no embarrassing facts for some particular side. The page
that you (I think) posted on Death Tolls for the Major
Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm
is very good. The reason that it's very good is again
obvious: whatever one's place on the political spectrum,
some of those facts are *discomforting*.
> Finding the truth is actually quite easy, particularly
> now that we have the internet. Opening up to it is
> the hard part.
The internet does not help, because it's simply too easy
to find narratives compatible with one's beliefs and biases.
Here is the *only* way the truth will emerge: highly
objective, critical people with no *overpowering* biases
will become familiar with the entire multi-volume history
of an historical event, and they're own love for the truth
will gradually become evident to younger people growing
up. For example, Allen Weinstein was a young liberal who
wanted to establish Alger Hiss's innocence once and for
all. But as he got deeper and deeper into the accounts
of all the parties, slowly he became convinced that Alger
Hiss had indeed spied for the Soviets. (Perjury: The Hiss-
Chambers Case by Allen Weinstein). Soon all those who are
emotionally committed to Hiss's innocence will be dead
(or hopefully frozen). I could have picked an issue that
would have embarrassed conservatives almost as easily, but
like I was saying, it's easier for me to *remember* the
ones that conform most to my worldview.
So, Jeff, you are kidding yourself if you think that you
have "opened up". Yes, you wrote
> Opening up to it is the hard part.
But above, you wrote "IT'S NOT THAT HARD!!! Mostly, you
need to get out of your own way."
Dead wrong: it's murder if it's possible at all.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:34 MST