Bear60's Blog

Have you noticed that proponents of conspiratorial, adversarial theories and one-world ideologies will often make sweeping statements? They pride themselves on freedom of speech and religion, and what they believe is the Truth (many Christian radicals use the norm for the Truth as being whatever comes from the Bible, or perhaps some other mystical book). The main issue here, of course, is that Christianity (and other faith traditions) has many, many different ways of interpreting what they would term the Truth. Often these statements are wide-ranging, “glittering generalities” that are hypothetical premises.

General Semanticists would say at this point, that there are two ways of reasoni,ng. The first would be intensional reasoning. This falls into the category of a “vicious circle.” For example, if I say, “I feel blue,” there aren’t a lot of facts that can be used to explain the meaning of the words that is, in the real world. Show me what a “blue” is without pointing to something blue in the objective world. How would you define blue in a dictionary-sort of way? Is blue a person, place or thing? Who is Ms. Blue or Mr. Blue, anyway?

They would also say that extensional reasoning is based on the structural reality of biological life. If I make statements that use definitions that have no grounding in what can be scientifically known, I will find myself adrift in my own “fuzzy logic” and the consequences of this is that I, the speaker or writer, become the facsimile of Truth. I will find that I am a law to myself. I will find that this is very immature, unsane thinking that truly is crazymaking!

And here’s the rub: when someone starts throwing the word Truth around mindlessly or with some volition or meaning for them, they’ve entered a different world than our scientifically based natural world. When observed carefully, if statements are used that are unaligned to ‘the ways things work in the world,’ one finds oneself working only within their own assumption, bias, inference, and possibly one’s own delusion, then all bets for finding Truth are off, because the boundaries are already set, and these are self-incapacitating. The two types of reasoning create conflicts, poor historians and a general lack of maturity.

A major problem with so much of our thinking processes is that instead of presenting ideas that are factual and built on a scientific statement, we often use what we infer from such facts as statements of absolute certainty. This causes our reasoning to get off track, and our opinions reach the level of statements of truth. People generally will argue about opinions, with each person thinking that his or her opinions are expressions of truth.

To infer something means that when we have something in front of us that may be an observed dynamic in our natural system, so we may infer (interpret?) something out of the facts and empirical reality. What we say in stating our inference is not the same as the empirical object that we may see around us. For that we may need extra materials to verify that it is indeed logical, repeatable, and fitting appropriately next to something else in the real world.

Each of has to find a means to train to be critical thinkers. We need to really ask, “How do I know this?” What sources is the presenter or writer using to support his or her claim? It’s always a red flag when someone makes blanket statements, such as ‘most of the people we know who are Jewish may not be real Jews,” a statement I heard recently on the Power of Prophecy website. Well, I respond “how do you know this?’

Unfortunately, what may happen is that a statement made by a speaker/writer may be an inference or even a bias that can often translate into a false conception of persons, places or things. In one swift movement, we now are listening to a dressed up anti-Semitism, for example, that sounds plausible to people whose mindsets are attuned to exaggeration and drama; they can’t get enough of the emotional component of their findings, but don’t balance this off with sound, intellectual and semantic reasoning.

Many religionists and other ideologues often use these specious methods, because most of the time, there’s no way to disprove someone living within a closed system. The other side effect is that many people who believe in prophecies, mysterious auguries, and the future of the world suffer from what I term prediction addiction. Prediction addiction is the addiction to being the expert who can explain what everything means; it’s the addiction of creating illusory scenarios of what are lives might be like in the future. It’s the dubious hunt for some kind of security based on certainly—in a perfect world this day dream might have some merit, but we live in a messy, often uncontrollable world where there just is no good definition of perfection. Even if there were do we all really want perfection now in this existence?

Teachers of conspiracy theories, New Age prophecies, and biblical prophecies are many times afflicted by prediction addiction that adds to their own denial of their flawed and illogical reasoning. Representatives from other faiths might use their own didactic content in this way as well. Please understand, this writer isn’t against the notion of spirituality, it’s the notion of spiritual messages that are founded on inference rather than fact that the writer opposes.

Many folks who study this kind of material, become self-absorbed in seeing how they can link together statements they believe have been transmitted through the generations, in a patchwork quilt of causal factors, questionable premises, and biased research. Yet they claim it proves their claims. I suppose they are the keepers of the hidden secrets, and only they can communicate this to the world.

There’s also another phenomenon in the mix: polls have shown that the average person in this nation has about a high school reading level. How may any of us burrow down into the hidden, dusty vaults and learn all this information, if it’s hidden from view from most people? It seems far easier to me, if you were making the case for the spiritual, non-empirically-based under girding of Truth, to simply begin observing the natural systems in the world around us. This kind of examination at least assists one in finding how the structure of biota operates in our environment.

When you look at any environment on the planet, you first observe the process of life taking place around you. You find nuances of reality going on here. There is also a non-verbal phase of life in the objective world. At the next level, humans usually describe what they see, but none of us can really say what the word “tide” means in a sheer linguistic and emotionally intelligent way. We are still only using symbolic symbols to somehow attempt to describe something that can be seen in the functioning of the world. The description isn’t the reality—the reality is the reality.
As soon as we use words, to describe the supernatural or spiritual, we’ve already added into the equation limitations.

Here are a few methods that will help us separate fact from friction:

o Always seek original source materials to investigate whether something allegedly is said to be “true.”
o Ask the person who is speaking, if you have the opportunity, “How do you know that?”
o Am I reasoning from my own thoughts and conjectures, or are there external, factual and extensional supports that indicate the truth or error of any statement or premise?
o Check out http://www.generalsemantics.org, the Institute of General Semantics website to find out more about semantic principles that may be used in our daily lives.
o Learn the difference between a fact and an inference.
o Do an ID check of your self: listen to your own verbal patterns, and learn to be aware of facts you use, inferences you have cultivated around certain issues, biases towards others, and stereotypes about different groups that effect the way you perceive them in either a negative or positive way.

Try these “check points” out to see how they work for you. Don’t be persuaded about any given theory or idea, but use your critical thinking skills.

© Christopher Bear-Beam, MA January 23, 2011