Why are "truth" and "reality" relevant to epistemological inquiry?

[The Mikado]

Plato had a concept known as the noble lie which he explains in Republic as a way of justifying societal rules and regulations to people in the lower rungs of society...in Republic, he posits a world where people are born as representatives of a varieties of metal or wood, with the wood people doomed to a life of manual labor while the golds, the silvers, etc. take the higher castes, knowing full well that people are not actually born to a certain fate but allowing decision-makers to make that decision as a way of organizing society.  Similarly, in Symposium, Plato has several of Socrates' interlocutors (Pausanias' distinction between Pandemic and Heavenly Aphrodite and Aristophanes' parable about the origin of sexuality) blatantly make up religious myths in an attempt to justify their viewpoints, with the implication that either of them would be fine with integrating their innovations into the faith of the city to justify their viewpoint (Socrates himself does the same, but claims his position was related to him by Diotima).

Plato did not believe that truth was a valuable goal to strive for, but, instead, "Truth" and its friends like "Love" and "Good," the ideal world of the forms of which ours was a mere, murky reflection.

The principle that truth itself (as in, literal truth related to the material world) is valuable is one that I've struggled with and have mostly rejected.  The advocates of material world have, over the last two hundred years, insisted through their ideologies of utilitarianism and pragmatism, managed to convince many that the very act of study or contemplation of the truth values of other potential planes (whether through philosophy or theology) is irrelevant and a waste of time.  There's a poisonous notion that science, with its catalog of facts about the natural world and lack of moral or epistemological framework to view them with, is the only serious way to explore the universe.

Why is the truth of the scientists one that should wipe out the quest for true Truth?  Why must the rationalists insist on dispelling all the noble lies that underpinned the old way of thought, from God Himself to the values of the old order in general?  Why have we allowed science to overtake philosophy as the lens by with we examine the universe?

Put simply, why is something true and problematic of greater value to society than something "untrue" and beautiful?    I much prefer the madmen, the artists, and the mystics to the killjoy followers of "reality" and reason.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

That depends on what you looking for though.

Would you reject "truth" and "reality" in epidemology for instance? Hasn't science given us the Smallpox vaccine as well as Zyklon B? Do you want to go Jenny McCarthy on this?

And if the history of science has taught us anything, it is how near-to-useless our intitutions are in understanding the natural world.

[DemPGH]

I may have some additional thoughts later, but a couple points:

There's actually kind of a prime directive in Anthropology, for e.g., that you do not set out to dispel peoples' myths - ever. Why? Because it would be like destroying evidence and it would be a type of violation. The field of Anthro, for instance, that studies religion doesn't subscribe to myths but it does not set out to debunk them. Just so that's clear. Anthropologists want to know about the myths, what they have in common, why they originated, etc. while holding whatever personal opinions they wish.

However, in the developed world we can have these debates, and we can dispel myths because we have found through a lot of trial and error (emphasis on error, but also emphasis on trial - as in, Inquisition) a better way to make knowledge than just making up stuff. Who does not want to improve their knowledge base? If there's fog some morning, I could say that the gods had a party last night and it's the remnants of the fireworks they set off, or whatever. Or I could investigate it and find out that it's just condensed water vapor. I really don't know anyone who would not want the second explanation. It helps weed out errors, does the scientific method. Life before the scientific method I would call a nightmare. In fact, the second explanation gives me joy. Because I learned something.

As to people interacting with their imaginations, there's a point on the spectrum where that becomes unhealthy, and there is no credible psychologist or psychiatrist who would say otherwise.

[The Mikado]

That depends on what you looking for though.

Would you reject "truth" and "reality" in epidemology for instance? Hasn't science given us the Smallpox vaccine as well as Zyklon B? Do you want to go Jenny McCarthy on this?

And if the history of science has taught us anything, it is how near-to-useless our intitutions are in understanding the natural world.

My point is that science acts like an overgrown 12 year old shouting "f**k you, Dad!" to its old master, Philosophy.  Scientists love to constantly attempt to expand their sphere of knowledge without realizing that it's a most reckless course of action.  Millennia of wisdom is neglected in favor of furthering "knowledge," a far inferior product.

To DemPGH, my point is that the most factually accurate explanation of a phenomenon is not always (and even not usually) the most socially desirable or necessary one, and that many times encouraging belief in something blatantly mystical can have a more desirable social effect.  Viewing the many perils of the natural world as products of capricious and not-particularly-friendly divine beings like the ancients did has many positive effects in terms of creating a healthy fear of and respect for nature.  "Don't go into the woods or you'll be eaten by wolves, witches, and tree-spirits" is a far better deterrent to rampant deforestation than "you're destroying the planet's lungs," which has proven singularly ineffectual in deterring Amazon deforestation.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

That depends on what you looking for though.

Would you reject "truth" and "reality" in epidemology for instance? Hasn't science given us the Smallpox vaccine as well as Zyklon B? Do you want to go Jenny McCarthy on this?

And if the history of science has taught us anything, it is how near-to-useless our intitutions are in understanding the natural world.

My point is that science acts like an overgrown 12 year old shouting "f**k you, Dad!" to its old master, Philosophy.  Scientists love to constantly attempt to expand their sphere of knowledge without realizing that it's a most reckless course of action.  Millennia of wisdom is neglected in favor of furthering "knowledge," a far inferior product.

All Scientists are not Sam Harris.

Actually Mikado it's pretty dubious to say that "Don't go into the woods or you'll be eaten by wolves, witches, and tree spirits" would stop deforestation either. It didn't in the Bronze age and American Indians (funnily enough I've just been reading about this) weren't always so green either, more Green than the Colonists, sure, but that wasn't hard.

[Ransom]

That depends on what you looking for though.

Would you reject "truth" and "reality" in epidemology for instance? Hasn't science given us the Smallpox vaccine as well as Zyklon B? Do you want to go Jenny McCarthy on this?

And if the history of science has taught us anything, it is how near-to-useless our intitutions are in understanding the natural world.

My point is that science acts like an overgrown 12 year old shouting "f**k you, Dad!" to its old master, Philosophy.  Scientists love to constantly attempt to expand their sphere of knowledge without realizing that it's a most reckless course of action.  Millennia of wisdom is neglected in favor of furthering "knowledge," a far inferior product.

To DemPGH, my point is that the most factually accurate explanation of a phenomenon is not always (and even not usually) the most socially desirable or necessary one, and that many times encouraging belief in something blatantly mystical can have a more desirable social effect.  Viewing the many perils of the natural world as products of capricious and not-particularly-friendly divine beings like the ancients did has many positive effects in terms of creating a healthy fear of and respect for nature.  "Don't go into the woods or you'll be eaten by wolves, witches, and tree-spirits" is a far better deterrent to rampant deforestation than "you're destroying the planet's lungs," which has proven singularly ineffectual in deterring Amazon deforestation.

A better example might be the common belief of most animist societies that all things, including trees, have spirits. Thus, excess deforestation was taboo in a way those of us in post-mystic (modern) societies cannot relate to. However, I think the positive contributions of science and technological advancement far outweigh the negatives. People across the globe are healthier, wealthier, and better educated than ever before. Despite the global improvement in living standards, there has not been (that I am aware of) a global abandonment of spirituality, mysticism, or cultural tradition. That seems confined to the west. Elsewhere, scientific and technological innovations have been integrated into the existing social structure. Midwives among many native peoples in South America accepting modern medical practices (like washing your hands) is one example that comes to mind.

If you perceive the process of modernization as one where scientists and rationalists try wring every drop of mysticism and tradition out of human culture in pursuit of some perfect truth, I can see how you could be put out (particularly if you are in the humanities). But I don't think that is very accurate. Scientists seek first to discover what is true. If that debunks myths, so be it, but it rarely the intention of scientists to dismantle tradition. And most people (that I know, anyway) don't see a need to discontinue their own superstitions to adopt some new technology.

All of that said, I am not sure that glorifying ancient mystical beliefs which kept ancient peoples out of trouble is a good thing for modern men to do. We have reached a point where we have the tools to explain most of the natural world logically. Rather than promoting religions and superstitions, we should be educating everyone to the level where they can understand why things work the way they do without having to fall back to religion. To use your example, people should not oppose deforestation because God told them to, but because they know it to be harmful to the planet and to local communities.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problems with one conscience that comes with spreading the noble lie (if it's to be more than an intellectual exercise at demonstrating the cleverness of Plato; at some point, someone has to put it into action). It represents a paternalistic attitude, that which assumes that you know better than others, as opposed to the egalitarian attitude that deals with others as equals. It seems a formula for justifying the dominion of some over others; a very hierarchical society.

I know that there are a lot of patriarchs of churches and companies and all sorts of organizations who spread lies... most not so noble... but even apart from the good it does, would such a life not be terribly lonely and corrupting? Particularly for example, if you are the pastor at a church as an atheist. You spend your life preaching about love and telling people to put their hopes and lives on the line for God, but at the end of the day when you close the front door and fall down on your knees sobbing because it was all an act. You lose basic trustworthiness in all your relationships. It just seems like it would be so lonely and emotionally exhausting.

Besides, is not the convincing argument made by one who believes in it? If you don't believe in your noble lie, in some way or another it will become apparent and you won't be effective anyway.

On the other hand, I do agree (very strongly) with what you're saying about science not being sufficient, more probably than is apparent from my posts here. So I don't know what the answer is.

[Mopsus]

I think that the example that you cite in your opening post illustrates the danger of a "Truth" that is totally dis-attached from reality, unquestionable, assumed true without debate. Such a "Truth" can be used as a tool of oppression, and the oppressed are, of course, powerless to oppose it, because it is "Truth", and you can't question "Truth".

[Beet]

All of that said, I am not sure that glorifying ancient mystical beliefs which kept ancient peoples out of trouble is a good thing for modern men to do. We have reached a point where we have the tools to explain most of the natural world logically. Rather than promoting religions and superstitions, we should be educating everyone to the level where they can understand why things work the way they do without having to fall back to religion. To use your example, people should not oppose deforestation because God told them to, but because they know it to be harmful to the planet and to local communities.

Except that science doesn't yet explain why things work the way they do; there's still far more that we're ignorant of than that we know. And there probably always will be. Merely explaining the physical world does not necessarily give reasons to behave one way or another. Some people for instance, would simply calculate that harming the planet is a cost they can bear; as a "commons", none of them have the individual incentive to sacrifice the next development project for the planet, or even the local community. But if they believed that the forest were filled with spirits that would curse them, then they would never develop.

[pbrower2a]

Science is amoral. Science could have told us what happens when a jetliner crashes into an iron-and-glass tower before 9/11. Indeed the plotters of the 9/11 attack used sophistic learning in science and engineering to figure that out. It takes morality to decide that crashing a jetliner nearly full of jet fuel into a tall building is horribly wrong.

Soviet and American scientists working on nuclear warheads and missiles were compartmentalized in their thinking on how to deliver a large and effective nuke to some place designated as a "tank factory", "army base", "missile assembly site", or "submarine pens". Those were obvious military targets in the sense that "theater district", "art museum", "architectural wonder", or "historical monument" weren't.  

What gave them cold feet about nuclear warfare? Our physicists got invited to their cities (or those of their allies) and got wined and dined in Moscow,  Leningrad, Prague, and Budapest.   Their scientists got invited to our cities (or those of our allies) and got wined and dined in New York, London, Paris, and Amsterdam. Both their scientists and ours came to the conclusion that the missiles that they were working on would be used against such places in a nuclear exchange and that destroying the Hermitage or the Louvre would be a monstrous deed. But our nuclear scientists and theirs lost much of their enthusiasm for nuclear warfare. Talkative as scientists are, they convinced non-scientists. But they were performing as moral actors making esthetic and humane decisions and not as scientists.    

[anvi]

Well, I certainly do appreciate the points you're making Mikado; it's very true that myth, symbol and so forth play extraordinarily important roles in culture, in people's motivations and so on, roles that are too important and vital to what kinds of creatures we are to be dispensed with.

Two slight reservations to that occur to be are the following.  First, if "truth" is no longer a goal, than does epistemology, as such, survive at all?  If epistemology is conceived as the study of "knowledge," and if we further assume that "knowledge" is some species of "true belief," then if truth is no longer a philosophical aim, then what happens to epistemology?  Does it just collapse or vanish as a philosophical practice or cultural pursuit, in science, in courts of law, and so on?  And if so, might that not have deleterious consequences for us too?

Second, on a more anecdotal note, one of my colleagues, after several years of becoming heavily involved in the philosophy of symbol and myth, now, I find, just lies all the time....about everything, and for no other reason than furthering his own causes.  This doesn't happen to everyone who appreciates myth of course.  But it does trouble me.  If there is a distinction between a "noble lie" and an "ignoble lie," and if we sideline truth as an ideal, then how do we tell the difference between these?

In raising these concerns, I'm not being critical of the points you're making--on the contrary I greatly appreciate them.  But they're what came to my mind as I read through the OP.

[afleitch]

Why is the truth of the scientists one that should wipe out the quest for true Truth?  Why must the rationalists insist on dispelling all the noble lies that underpinned the old way of thought, from God Himself to the values of the old order in general?  Why have we allowed science to overtake philosophy as the lens by with we examine the universe?

I hate 'noble lies'. I detest them in fact, because there's nothing 'noble' within them as such a stems entirely from human thought dependent on internal conceptions and biases. That person either internalises his world view, or if he has power, demands that others submit to his worldview regardless of what the reality is. So to take your ‘forest’ analogy, only someone that wished ill will on people, coupled perhaps with the need to control them, would suggest that ‘bad things will get you’ in the forest. Why else would you do it?

[Torie]

So what should public policy be vis a vis "noble lies," and what should scientists do about them? It seems to me in the information age, the age of "noble lies" is about over. What is not over is "ignoble lies," where myths are constructed to justify the acting out of one's own character flaws. The human species is very talented at rationalizing execrable behavior.

The problem with public policy enabling of noble lies, is that once it becomes common currency that what is being hawked out there is a lie, then down the drain goes the credibility of the philosopher kings. Lie to me once, and I will never trust you again.

I sometimes get the feeling that the Green movement is deeply entangled in the mire of noble lies.

[John Dibble]

Material truths and values are not the same thing, and most rationalists understand this. Material truths tell us things about the universe, values are things we hold in relation to our interactions with the universe and the people around us. Understanding material truths allow us to take actions that will produce ends more in line with our values.

For example, if we value treating our fellow human beings with kindness and fairness then understanding more material truths about human beings should enable us to treat them that way. For example, in many cultures the "millennia of wisdom" was such that homosexuals were considered to be sick or perverted, that they were choosing to do something unnatural and wrong. Science has shown us that homosexuality is not a choice and that it is not really harmful or unnatural, and as this material truth spreads our society's treatment of homosexuals is becoming kinder and fairer, resulting in them being happier and having better quality of life.


In regards to noble lies, it would take a rather extreme case for me to support this notion. Where a particular piece of knowledge is dangerous, I think it's good enough to simply deny that knowledge to those who shouldn't have it. For instance, I don't think any rationalist would posit it a good idea to post plans for a nuclear bomb on the internet. Still, unless you had a really, really good reason for a noble lie I don't think it's a good way to run a society.

[DemPGH]

So saying, "If you cut trees down you'll really make angry Zeus" will stop deforestation more quickly than hard data? Hmm. "If you go into the woods the werewolves will get you." Sounds like, "if you sail west too far you'll fall off the edge of the Earth." Well, someone tried it, and they did not fall off the edge of the Earth, or were eaten by sea monsters, or whatever. If you tell someone, "If you go into the woods the goblins will get you," guess what? Someone will go into the woods to find out. I would be one. And I would not be eaten by goblins or whatever.

In all seriousness, the "noble lie" is associated with 1) a corrupt antiquity, 2) the aristocracy, 3) a lack of knowledge and technology, 4) corrupt religious orders, and 5) a time when people were striving hard to figure things out, which is the human drive. To be better!

You cannot erase knowledge and experience, years, to go back to some pre-pubescent state of innocence sans all the bad stuff.

Science is headed in one direction making a lot of progress. Myth is standing pat facing another direction. Myth turns to Science and says, "You can't do that!" Yet Science does, and should.

[The Mikado]

Perhaps I picked a poor example of a Noble Lie.  Here's one far more to modern tastes: "That all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.". Do you think that that's literally true?  The Creator of all, in sublimely Lockean fashion, elaborated each of His subject's rights in some holy contract that sits in the Celestial Archives?  Of course not, but it's a good thing that people accept it on some level because the alternative is horrifying.

[Mopsus]

Perhaps I picked a poor example of a Noble Lie.  Here's one far more to modern tastes: "That all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.". Do you think that that's literally true?  The Creator of all, in sublimely Lockean fashion, elaborated each of His subject's rights in some holy contract that sits in the Celestial Archives?  Of course not, but it's a good thing that people accept it on some level because the alternative is horrifying.

Yet, wouldn't it be fair to say that that statement is more true in practice (especially the part about man(kind) being "equal") today than it was when it was written, and actually was considered literally true?

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Beet]

Perhaps I picked a poor example of a Noble Lie.  Here's one far more to modern tastes: "That all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.". Do you think that that's literally true?  The Creator of all, in sublimely Lockean fashion, elaborated each of His subject's rights in some holy contract that sits in the Celestial Archives?  Of course not, but it's a good thing that people accept it on some level because the alternative is horrifying.

Yet, wouldn't it be fair to say that that statement is more true in practice (especially the part about man(kind) being "equal") today than it was when it was written, and actually was considered literally true?

Well the statement was about whether mankind was created equal and with rights, not whether society agrees to treat us as equals and grant us privileges (that are called rights). And of course, it is based on the endowment of a Creator. It's a good example of something whose justification is entirely normative/philosophical, and trying to examine the verity of it in a scientific manner (as some are inevitably wont to do) is besides the point.

[anvi]

Nathan, can you tell me the source for that incredible bit by Vonnegut?  Thanks much.

[Mopsus]

Perhaps I picked a poor example of a Noble Lie.  Here's one far more to modern tastes: "That all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.". Do you think that that's literally true?  The Creator of all, in sublimely Lockean fashion, elaborated each of His subject's rights in some holy contract that sits in the Celestial Archives?  Of course not, but it's a good thing that people accept it on some level because the alternative is horrifying.

Yet, wouldn't it be fair to say that that statement is more true in practice (especially the part about man(kind) being "equal") today than it was when it was written, and actually was considered literally true?

Well the statement was about whether mankind was created equal and with rights, not whether society agrees to treat us as equals and grant us privileges (that are called rights). And of course, it is based on the endowment of a Creator. It's a good example of something whose justification is entirely normative/philosophical, and trying to examine the verity of it in a scientific manner (as some are inevitably wont to do) is besides the point.

But whether we believe that mankind was created with certain rights, or that it is better for all of us to act as if it was, what difference does it make? My point was that we haven't started treating each other like animals since we stopped believing the "noble lie"; if anything, we treat each other better now than when we did.

[John Dibble]

Perhaps I picked a poor example of a Noble Lie.  Here's one far more to modern tastes: "That all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.". Do you think that that's literally true?  The Creator of all, in sublimely Lockean fashion, elaborated each of His subject's rights in some holy contract that sits in the Celestial Archives?  Of course not, but it's a good thing that people accept it on some level because the alternative is horrifying.

I would say this is a poor example of a noble lie for another reason - it's not really a lie since it's not an attempt at deception. The man who wrote it was a deist and he probably believed the statement wholeheartedly. His compatriots were also largely deists or Christians as well, so it's safe to say they also believed it. It's not like Thomas Jefferson or the other founders just made up the idea for the sake of getting those who believed in a creator deity to think what they wanted them to think.

It's also not necessary for people to believe that a creator had to make things that way to think that a society in which we treat one another with tolerance and fairness is a better one than one that does not. Lots of people don't believe in a creator but still assert that the fundamental idea behind that statement is a good one to base a civilization on.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Nathan, can you tell me the source for that incredible bit by Vonnegut?  Thanks much.

It's from his commencement speech to the Bennington College Class of 1970.

[afleitch]

Perhaps I picked a poor example of a Noble Lie.  Here's one far more to modern tastes: "That all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.". Do you think that that's literally true?  The Creator of all, in sublimely Lockean fashion, elaborated each of His subject's rights in some holy contract that sits in the Celestial Archives?  Of course not, but it's a good thing that people accept it on some level because the alternative is horrifying.

The problem with your position is that you are essentially advocating hokum, which in itself can never be ‘amoral.’

If you think about another example, it could be the whole Todd Akin thing; women have a natural way of shutting down a pregnancy that’s the result of ‘legitimate rape’. Even if we drop the phrase legitimate and just talk about rape in general, such an assertion is medically speaking, bullsh-t. But for him, given his views on abortion it is a ‘noble lie.’ For someone who thinks being gay is abhorrent, saying that’s it’s caused by demonic possession would also fit that classification. The cold, hard, ‘divorced from philosophy’ sciences from psychology, to behavioural studies, to genetics, to evolution and so on affirms that there is nothing wrong with me. It’s hokum that makes people believe there’s something the matter with them because they believe those who peddle it.

[Mopsus]

Kurt Vonnegut's criticism of "science" in that quote is rather ridiculous, imo. He starts with a perfectly legitimate complaint: that advancements in military technology have made it more easy to kill more people than ever before. I totally agree with him there - every "advancement" in military technology since the invention of the bow and arrow has been a step in the wrong direction. However, we disagree on where to place the blame. Vonnegut could choose to blame the men who commissioned the development of such technology, the men who conducted the research, the men who ordered its use on human beings, or the men who made its development necessary. Instead, he chooses to blame the process by which we came up with such weapons: "science", which is merely the process of understanding the physical world through empirical means... the same process, I might add, that has saved the lives of at least one billion human beings (and, in reality, many tens of millions more). But I guess that that isn't enough to make up for the evil that "science" has done, so Vonnegut prefers to return to a time without science, when men put all their faith in superstition. Because, apparently, people didn't kill each other before the invention of the modern scientific method. All that I can say to that is "lol".

Kurt Vonnegut didn't have a problem with "science". Kurt Vonnegut had a problem with humanity, who is ultimately responsible for what we do with our discoveries.