Truth isn't personal, but institutional

This morning I finished reading The Constitution of Knowledge, a book by Jonathan Rauch whose subtitle is "In Defense of Truth." 

As noted in a previous blog post about this book, Rauch persuasively argues that truth isn't personal, but institutional. Or social, if you have a dislike of institutions and prefer another word.

Here's a quote from the second to last page of the book that ends with a reflection of this point: "...and outsource reality to a global network of strangers."

As I wrote in chapter 1, the Constitution of Knowledge is the most successful social design in human history, but also the most counterintuitive.

In exchange for knowledge, freedom, and peace, it asks us to mistrust our senses and our tribes, question our sacred beliefs, and relinquish the comfort of certitude. 

It insists that we embrace our fallibility, subject ourselves to criticism, tolerate the reprehensible, and outsource reality to a global network of strangers.

For me, this was a fresh idea. Not that I wasn't aware of it. I just hadn't thought of how we humans go about arriving at a shared conception of reality in the clear way that Rauch speaks of. 

Understand: he isn't talking about subjective reality, personal experience. It doesn't take a global network of strangers for me to know that I like raspberries. That's a personal truth of mine which requires no one other than me and my taste buds to confirm.

But otherwise, I agree with Rauch that truth has to be social/institutional in order for it to be objective rather than subjective. 

Yesterday I went into the south Salem Ace Hardware store to buy some polycarbonate cutting blades for my Stihl trimmer. (I've found they work much better than the usual cutting line for tall grass and brush.) 

I told the Stihl specialist that in using the trimmer a few days ago, the poly blades got trashed when I was cutting thin brush. He was surprised. "Have you been storing the blades in water?" he asked. "No, I've seen reviews of the blades that say this is a good idea, but other users say it isn't necessary."

He was adamant that storing the blades in water would harden them. Indeed, when I got home and looked at the back of an old package of blades that I had lying around, I read that Stihl advises just that: storing them in water.

Institutional knowledge. When I looked at comments from people like me who simply use the poly blades, there was a diversity of opinion about storing them in water. But experts, and the Stihl company itself, said to do this. So now I've got a bunch of poly blades soaking in a plastic container. 

When you think about it, this is how knowledge passes from a potential truth to a very likely or certain truth. There has to be a community of truth-seekers who assess the validity of a potential truth. An individual can't do this on their own. 

Hillary Clinton correctly said that it takes a village to raise a child. And it takes institutions to arrive at shared truths.

Consider the 2020 presidential election in the United States. Even though Trump and much of the Republican Party did their best to overturn Joe Biden's victory, they didn't succeed. As was repeated often, "the institutions held."

County and state election officials. Secretaries of State in swing states. Courts, including the Supreme Court. Congress. Journalists.

These institutions stood up for the truth that Joe Biden beat Donald Trump. If individuals had to argue about who won, we'd still be debating this question. (Indeed, Trump and his cronies continue to refuse to admit that he lost.)

Here's a few more passages from the final pages of the book.

The young Lincoln held that reverence for the law is the true north of America's constitutional culture. Reverence for facts is the true north of the reality-based community. 

Sometimes we get facts wrong. Of course. But we do not cheat. We do not cut corners. We hold ourselves accountable -- to others, to our community -- for rejecting convenient fictions and half-truths.

Because factuality anchors our integrity and defines our community, we renounce propaganda and truthiness even if we are the only person in the vicinity who is doing so. And just by doing that, we make a difference. 

As the great Soviet writer and dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote in his masterpiece, The Gulag Archipelago, "You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world."

...My biggest worry is Lincoln's biggest worry: "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher."

By themselves, the forces of chaos and coercion lack the strength to unseat the Constitution of Knowledge, and if they did unseat it, they would have nothing to replace it with except a Hobbesian war of each of millions of personal and tribal realities against all the others.

What propagandists and social-media bullies and emotional safetyists and subjectivists and all the rest might succeed in doing, however, is to demoralize and confuse and intimidate, so that the reality-based community will lose heart and give ground.

...Yet the reality-based community has withstood much worse. It beat back the inquisitors who imprisoned Galileo, the dictators whose gulags spanned continents, and the racists and homophobes who sought to silence voices of freedom.

"Tomorrow morning," said Socrates, "let us meet here again." The conversation he and his young protege began 2,500 years ago continues, now spanning the world instead of just Athens, despite countless efforts to squash it.

Comments

[Spence Tepper]

If the blades come out soggy, and not harder, will you trust the advice?

You are only trusting it to the extent of testing it for yourself. Your mileage may vary. Some may have a different experience. Let them be guided by that. What else do they have but their own ability to test?

But then, a good scientist would ask, "Did you soak in water or something else?"

Sometimes it pays to re - examine whether we ourselves have fulfilled the preparation and maintenance instructions of the manufacturer.

And when we find our compliance lacking, do we blame Stihl or simply change to meet the instructions given?

Wisely, when you examined things closely, you understood the instructions and now are following them correctly, in anticipation of the correct results.

Still, the gold standard will be the reality of what happens to those blades.

When we do the best we can, ee must accept the reality we are handed. And I believe it is wise for others to accept your reality as real for you.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian Ji!
Having written this I now think there is another side to the story.
1. What if Stihl is the label added to a brand made somewhere else by others, and Stihl is mistaken?

2. What if the "institution" is wrong? (How would we know? Or, what if the Institution's answers just don't work for someone?)

3. What is the science that allows for the institution to be wrong? To undergo refined testing when it's instructions prove wanting?

4. What is the means for that institution to amend its instructions to fit the needs and machinery it sells? And how would anyone confirm for themselves?

5. If we are all fallible and in different environments, doesn't that suggest we must invent our own beliefs to fit our situation?

6. Shouldn't we be helping each other invent more practical. effective and less toxic rules instead?

7. Can we move, as individuals, from a binary world to a multiverse world?

8. Is there room, for example, in the "scientific worldview" for multiple and equally legitimate psychological, neurological, and social realities?

[Brian Hines]

Spence, answers below

Hi Brian Ji!
Having written this I now think there is another side to the story.
1. What if Stihl is the label added to a brand made somewhere else by others, and Stihl is mistaken?

That's ridiculous. Stihl is a German company with a great reputation. I bought the blades from a Stihl dealer. Stihl doesn't sell its products online, on Amazon, etc.

2. What if the "institution" is wrong? (How would we know? Or, what if the Institution's answers just don't work for someone?)

Why would Stihl lie to customers, since they want their product to be bought, and the better the product is, the more people will buy it. Lousy argument, Spence.

3. What is the science that allows for the institution to be wrong? To undergo refined testing when it's instructions prove wanting?

Stihl continues to improve its products. I know, because I've recently bought a new chainsaw and new leaf blower. Their products work great. The new ones work even better. The proof Stihl is doing things right lies in the fact that almost every crew we've had do work on our 10 acres uses Stihl products.

4. What is the means for that institution to amend its instructions to fit the needs and machinery it sells? And how would anyone confirm for themselves?

Stihl is a private company. It succeeds by offering quality products at a decent price with good service. That can be confirmed by buying and using Stihl products, which I've done for many years.

5. If we are all fallible and in different environments, doesn't that suggest we must invent our own beliefs to fit our situation?

No. You need to read Rauch's book. Individuals are fallible, but the Constitution of Knowledge is much less so, because it relies on a wide variety of means not available to individual truth-seekers, such as having people with multiple perspectives weigh in on a truth issue. And it is committed to prioritizing truth over personal interest, which individuals are not, mostly.

6. Shouldn't we be helping each other invent more practical. effective and less toxic rules instead?

Not sure what you mean. Is soaking poly blades in water a toxic rule?

7. Can we move, as individuals, from a binary world to a multiverse world?

I don't inhabit a binary world or a multiverse world. I live in the same single world everyone else does.

8. Is there room, for example, in the "scientific worldview" for multiple and equally legitimate psychological, neurological, and social realities?

Of course, Every person has a different reality. But there is only one shared objective reality. Can you show me, or anyone else, a different shared objective reality? Naturally every human has a unique physical and mental body/brain. You would know this if you read as many science books as I do. People view the world differently for that reason. But science reveals the shared objective nature of the world.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian Ji
Thank you for your answers. They make objective sense to me.

On your last answer...

Every person has a different reality. But there is only one shared objective reality. Can you show me, or anyone else, a different shared objective reality? Naturally every human has a unique physical and mental body/brain. You would know this if you read as many science books as I do. People view the world differently for that reason. But science reveals the shared objective nature of the world.

If each of us has a different physical and mental body brain, then might their psychological and physical needs be somewhat different?

And Therefore the rules they must live by to survive and be happy somewhat different from each other?

Not suggesting the full set of objective rules is different, but for each person they may need to live under a different set, from the master set?

I'm particular the social and psychological rules that are best suited to each individual?

You might say they live in different worlds, psychologically, but that would only be a manner of speaking. We are already living in just one world, though each of us may spend time in different physical, emotional and social geographies.

Would you agree? Or what are your thoughts about this statement?

[Brian Hines]

Spence, you are much more interested in intellectual wordplay than I am. In my everyday life (meaning when I'm not responding to Church of the Churchless comments), I'm concerned with practical stuff.

I buy Stihl products because I need to do something with them on our property. I spend zero time worrying about whether Stihl puts misleading information in their product information, or if Ace Hardware staff specializing in Stihl products mislead customers. If you have any evidence of either, share it. Otherwise I'm not interested in the epistemological possibilities of the Stihl company.

Likewise, above you raise a Straw Man just for the sake of engaging me in a wordplay argument that I have no interest in pursuing. In my entire life, I've never had anyone say that any two people are the same, with the same physical and psychological needs. Yet you just asked this question.

Obviously people are different. Obviously people spend time in different physical, emotional, and social geographies. That's the nature of the world. I'm interested in learning about the world, and how people view that world from their varying perspectives. You seem to be more interested in winning some sort of word game that has no relation to the actual world.

I have no interest in that game.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian Ji!
I apologize for coming across less than serious. What seems obvious to most people raises questions to me.

It occurs to me that if such a society as Rauch purposes and which you support were to exist how would they set up such rules? And how would they decide for others?

I think the diversity of people and lifestyles, which seems to be growing, would make that difficult. Hence my interest in your thoughts. But I'll read Rauch's book first.

Maybe instead of deciding for others we can educate better so they make better decisions.

I respect you greatly. I hope you know that.

It's my manner. I don't have the filters others do.

I do get that feedback too, mostly from senior execs who don't like to have their judgment questioned.

The problem is someone must do it, so it's just an occupational hazard I've fallen into, questioning things that seem to others perfectly clear and normal.

I have a reputation for not thinking in a straightforward way. Often too complicated to them, though it seems clear to me. And it's gotten a few troubled hospitals out of trouble.

I do have a small sense of humor.

Given the quality of the product it's a Stihl!

I'm sure their marketing department beat that one to death decades ago..

[Dungeness]

@ Brian Ji : "1. What if Stihl is the label added to a brand made somewhere else by others, and Stihl is mistaken?
--That's ridiculous. Stihl is a German company with a great reputation. I bought the blades from a Stihl dealer. Stihl doesn't sell its products online, on Amazon, etc."

But Stihl has manufacturing plants all over the world. Despite rigorous quality
control, potential flaws may (and almost inevitably are ) be introduced as
supply chains widen and control decentralizes. Without perfect quality control
and onsite inspection, a flawed polycarb defect might easily arise in some
secondary plant.

A company may be prone to dismiss some outlier "defect report" just as a
venerable "Constitution of Knowledge" committee tends to overlook non-
conformant views even ones based on valid observational data.

[Tendzin]

Oh for goodness sake. Progressives spent every day of the last 4 years feverishly campaigning that Trump didn't really win the 2020 election because of the Russian purchase of Facebook ads, and/or collusion between Trump and Putin because Putin "had something" on Trump.

We had month after month of hearings with firebreathing speeches from Democrats, endless front-page stories in the New York Times promising that the goods on Trump were just around the corner. It all came to naught, and it's a joke for anyone to deny that the Dems weren't engaged in a wholesale rejection of American democracy.