Believing is Seeing
The question behind Johnny Carson’s first foray into television may be the most important one we must answer in life. Whom do we trust? Everyone? Just my family and close friends? No one? What about the media? The government? Maybe I really only trust myself—sometimes.
Trusting another person, or group of people, is an act of faith far more difficult to earn than it is to lose. One lie, one betrayal, one evident falsehood and our trust is shaken if not broken altogether. Once violated, trust requires repeated confirmations of honesty and fidelity before it can be restored. The same holds true for ideas that have been bested in argument, or convictions troubled by doubt. All of us yearn for certainty, but life has a way of convincing us that skepticism is more realistic and safe than blindly trusting in people who may fail us or ideas that may prove erroneous.
For some time I’ve thought that each of us lives in a mental and spiritual house constructed from our own experiences, feelings, thoughts and fears. Whenever we trust another person, or trust a principle without reservation—our house feels grounded, airtight, and structurally sound. Trust is the mortar holding our relationships together, its strength tipping our credibility scale towards “yes” when we accept an idea and inspiring the “I believe” confession of our convictions. Saying “I know” in response to questions of fact or faith is based on our trusting both what we know and who may have convinced us of its truth. Who we trust is therefore inextricably linked to what we believe to be true, what we take for granted, and what we assume is self-evident.
A word philosophers use to capture what I’m talking about is epistemology, which explores how we know what we know for certain. While epistemology is a somewhat modern term, the question it poses has been on the minds of thinkers since at least the Greco-Roman age. Does our knowledge come from the mind alone, from rational insight and intuition? Does it come from the brain’s processing of the sensory inputs we receive from seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling and touching? Or does knowledge arise from revelations, dreams and the stirrings of our emotions?
Upon which of these ways of knowing do we usually depend, and which do we find most trustworthy? While most of us would probably check “all of the above,” it is more likely that we favor one or more of these ways of knowing. Some of us are like Mr. Spock or Jack Webb, relying on “just the facts” that we dispassionately, and logically apply to most of life’s questions. Others of us prefer to go with our “gut”, counting on feelings and vibes to discern what is true and real. Our knowledge of what is true and real boils down to where we put our trust, some of us trusting our heads more, some our hearts.
During the past 12 months we’ve seen how epistemology—how we know what we know--has been played out on a national scale. We’ve had to ask ourselves if the information delivered to us by politicians and their press secretaries, news broadcasters representing real/fake/drive-by media, medical experts, educators, protesters in the streets, entertainers and athletes voicing their opinions, as well as the opinions of colleagues, neighbors, friends and family members has been true, reliable and forthright. In this confusion of viewpoints and worldviews the question of what and who can we trust must be addressed.
“We follow the science!” has become the mantra of presidents and governors, their medical advisors, and the Big-Pharma developers of the life-saving elixirs now turning the tide against our latest viral enemy. Just follow the science…just trust. Our vaccine lines bear witness to how much we do trust. After all, who can argue with science? Where would we be, what would we do without science? Hasn’t our world been fashioned by science, providing us with the means to travel across land, sea, air and space and putting into our hands those technologies that have transformed how we live, communicate, eat, and entertain ourselves? If the scientific method that has produced the miracles of modern living isn’t trustworthy, what is? Don’t we confess our faith in it each time we board a plane?
Perhaps this is where I should inject a cautionary note. Science is based on the epistemological assumption--there’s that word again!--that reality is best understood when human reason is applied to interpreting our sensory experiences. In other words, seeing is believing. Following the science is trusting that what we can see—when carefully researched and brought to conclusions untainted by human self-interest—is what we can believe to be true. With these caveats on the table I, too, am inclined to follow the science, as my twice-vaccinated arm can attest. But…
What we trust and whom we trust are inextricably linked. The political, cultural, socioeconomic and spiritual strife that now convulses our country is, at root, based on deep-seated suspicions that now exist between major factions of our population. Last November’s election, our split and dysfunctional Congress and our bipolar news media reveal a country deeply divided over what and who is trustworthy. Following the science has become a contentious issue depending on who is interpreting it and who is making policies that affect our daily lives. Isn’t that why we are so torn about whether our kids can or should go back to school? Isn’t that why some of us harbor cynicism about if, or when they should get a vaccine? Isn’t that why mask wearing, social distancing, and business reopening is a trust issue as much as it is a scientific one?
As I see it we are left with two very different epistemological premises upon which our trust depends. Science rests on the one that most of us take for granted: seeing is believing. Better put: reality is best known and understood based on how we experience it through our senses (using the tools we’ve constructed to enhance those senses). When we follow the science we get our truest glimpse of REALITY as it really is, and not just as each of us may independently perceive it. Scientific theories may develop and change with new discoveries, but the methodology that propels and directs all genuine scientific inquiry has stood the tests of time and trial.
The other premise is widely embraced and highly influential, even if it usually goes unspoken: believing is seeing. What we take to be real always depends on the unique vantage point each of us occupies in time and space. Our preconceptions and assumptions can’t help but direct where we look for answers and who we judge to be credible. Objectivity, therefore, is always beyond our reach given our own inherent bias and subjectivity. What we believe to be true colors where we look, what we will accept, and whom we will trust in crafting a worldview. If you want to test this just watch an evening of CNN and FOX news--back to back.. I guarantee it will make you a believer.
What is real? What is true? That remains an open question for all thoughtful people this side of heaven. How we answer it each and every day always depends on whether we believe only what we can see, or whether we see only what our beliefs permit us to see. I’d ask you to trust me on this, but…
