I do worry about some of the opinions that have been coming out of the academic establishment recently. Unfortunately, they appear to be caused by cultural manipulation. That is, the fostering of cultural beliefs by minority vested interests, which can influence academia in the same way as everyone else. Some of these opinions can be extremely harmful to society. Consider for example, the popular view that we lack free will, and that everything is preordained. The justification for this view appears to come from a simplistic assumption about space-time and causality which, although commonly held, lacks empirical evidence. If we were to accept this opinion, then it would completely undermine our sense of agency, i.e., our ability to make decisions and act accordingly. This, in turn, would have an adverse impact on both our psychological wellbeing and our ability to deal with social and environmental problems.
Recently, I had a conversation with an influential academic who expressed the following opinion. “My issue with the concept of truth is that its temporariness tends to get lost as we speak of beliefs, reality and objectivity. … It is not a question of being agnostic (or not) about the knowability of an external, objective world; the question is irrelevant. … I worry that acceptance of an external, objective reality privileges those [who] can claim, based on their authority, to know that reality and dismiss those who do not. This then leads to a justification of oppression and violence.”
Personally, I do think that there is a reality, that we are a part of it, and that it defines what is true and what is not. I have also come to the conclusion that we interact differently with our natural and social environments. The former has no agency and hits us randomly with threats and opportunities that we have evolved to navigate. We do so quite well, in my view, and our success as a species is largely down to this. So, objective truth is important when dealing with the natural environment and this is reflected in our approach to the natural sciences.
On the other hand, our social environment does have agency, and we regard objective truth as being less important. So, we often engage in psychological defence mechanisms such as denial. We also often accept, form, and propagate beliefs that are not necessarily true, but rather ones that we feel are likely to satisfy our needs. So, interaction with our social environment can be very complex indeed. Nevertheless, we are a part of reality, governed by its rules, and there are techniques for identifying those rules, or something close to them, even though the endeavour is far more difficult than in the natural sciences.
However, the endeavour is worth pursuing. We now have a population of 8 billion and this, along with some of our behaviour, is unsustainable. So, if we are to have any hope of altering that situation, then we need to know the objective truth about human nature and our behaviour.
In view of the chaos of conflicting beliefs that we are currently presented with, we do need to find ways of coping. The strategy adopted by the academic referred to above is a good one, so long as it remains entirely personal. However, he is influential, and suggesting to others that there is no objective truth or that it is irrelevant is not a good idea. If there is no objective truth, then all ideas, views, opinions, morals, ethics, etc. are equally valid, or should I say invalid? Because culture relies on shared values, norms, and beliefs, this can undermine the cultural consensus, leading to cultural disintegration.
Approximately 13% of the population are estimated to have dark personality traits such as narcissism, psychopathy or Machiavellianism. I should emphasise that these are personality traits rather than pathologies, and that the behaviour of people with these traits is otherwise normal. However, by virtue of reduced moral and ethical standards, those with such traits are more likely to ascend to positions of power than others. Unfortunately therefore, many of our leaders have these traits. We rarely oppose those with greater power for fear of reprisal. So, our response can be to support them in our personal interest, flight to other organisations or nations, but, in most cases, it is denial. That is, we do not consciously acknowledge the existence of dark leaders until, for example, such time as war breaks out. Such leaders do often falsely claim the truth and it is sensible to point this out. Personally, I would never knowingly follow one, but unfortunately, many do.
However, as well as engaging in other forms of cultural manipulation, it is possible for dark leaders to undermine a belief in objective truth and, for the reasons given above, this is dangerous too. The argument that a belief in the existence of truth empowers dark leaders is incorrect. Rather, a disbelief in objective truth makes their lies much easier to follow.
In summary, people do have a problem with discovering and expressing the truth, particularly in the context of society, and it’s fair for academia to say that. However, academia should also point out that reality defines the truth, and that some human beliefs are closer to it than others.
These are difficult concepts to accept, can undermine our self-image, and this in itself can lead to denial. However, once we are aware of the problem there are techniques that we can use to bring our beliefs closer to the truth than they might otherwise have been. The Buddha even taught this 2500 years ago. Ones worth mentioning are the sociologist Margaret Archer’s meta-reflexivity. This involves reflecting on decisions that we have previously made and beliefs that we already hold to ascertain whether they are associated with our needs. If so, we can make a conscious effort to disassociate and revise them. Then there is the consistency of reality. If two ideas contradict one another, one must be false. Another important technique is empirical evidence gained from observation. Academic, political or other authority is no guarantee of the truth. Psychological defence mechanisms, satisfying beliefs, and vested interests operate in those arenas too. All opinions should be questioned no matter what the source.
Finally, you may also find this entertaining “Beginners Guide to Critical Realism” by Tom Fryer helpful. https://tfryer.com/ontology-guide/
Rational-Understanding.com 