Believing and Knowing!

Learn How to Think and Reason. Learn How to Know the Truth and to distinguish between belief and truth!

When we are small children, we learn from our parents. We believe what they say.

As we grow older, we also learn from what we are told by others. There are grandparents, uncles and aunts, cousins and other relatives. There are teachers, clergy, and authorities in government.We are to believe what is said because the person saying it is supposed to know the truth and tells the truth. But how do we know that what is being said is the truth? Why should we believe what we are told?

There comes a time in our lives when we discover that we have not been told the truth. How does that happen? It might be as simple as a child learning that there is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. Such lies told to small children are not intended to be harmful.

Were these fairy tale stories the only harmless lies told to children, what real difference would it make? However, there are many other lies told to children that remain with them all of their lives. Very often, for these children, and later when they are adults, they are never able to sort through what they have been told to find truth, and must rely on belief.

How do we know? Why do we believe?

These are the most important questions a thinking person should ask when confronted with the unsupported assertions uttered by those in positions of authority.

There is a fundamental difference between knowing something and believing it. To know something requires factual evidence and logical deduction. Believing something is a decision to accept something as truth without conclusive evidence or, indeed, without any evidence whatsoever. People can and often do believe something, even when facts, evidence, and even simple logic can establish its falsity. In the latter case, one should still know why he or she retains such a belief.

All of us would like to think that it is possible to know the truth or falsity of every assertion. However, that is not always possible. There are three categories involving truth:

1. Knowing truth from the corroboration of extensive physical evidence and rational thought;

2. Knowing untruth by falsifying with contradictory physical evidence and rational thought;

3. Knowing that for many beliefs, it may not be possible to test for truthfulness by physical evidence or rational thought. These assertions are non-truths.

It is much easier to believe than to know.

Knowing is often very hard work, and knowing requires knowledge in related areas, as well as intellectual tools such as the ability to read. Knowing requires an ability to reason and understand logical fallacies (like the logical fallacy that because an assertion cannot be proved false, it must be true).

Beliefs requires little mental effort, just the inclination to remember, accept, and act upon unsupported assertions put forth by parents or family, or by authorities in government, religion etc. Rote memorization and acceptance of unsupported assertion, and the irrational and often violent behavior that erupts from persons with such beliefs, is characteristic of the fanatic.

There is a very real danger to any democratic society when its leaders call for acceptance of unsupported assertions, who repeatedly lie, or encourage action based upon those unsupported assertions. There is even greater danger when patriotic fervor is induced to effect unquestioned acceptance of unsupported assertions (lies) by a government or a leader bent upon its or his own designs, and often to accumulate and maintain power. There is similarly greater danger when religious canon is injected into a society, like the United States, which, in its very creation, had leaders who knew the risks of state-imposed religion and provided for a separation of church and state in the nation’s Constitution and Bill of Rights.

A free society remains free only to the extent that its citizens question its leaders, and only to the extent that every assertion, and every lie — whether issued by a parent, a government, a religious authority is challenged. People must insist upon knowing rather than believing.

We all face the problem of determining what to believe, whom to believe, and how we know something is true. This problem is critical today, when one considers the ways in which the Russians, politicians and fanatics have been able to spread false news throughout our social networks.

Where we once appealed to the authority of a reputable newspaper or TV news program, we are now led to doubt these basic sources for the truth. We are presented with "alternative facts." Where we once could accept assertions by experts as authorities, we find that there is often deception, and what we have been told is false.

So what do we do?

We become skeptics. We examine sources, and we test unsupported assertions against established fact and logical reasoning. These should become the defining elements of "common sense."

How do we know the truth?

1. Corroboration of extensive physical evidence and logical reasoning
2. By falsifying with contradictory physical evidence and/or logical reasoning

Fact

1. Something that has actual existence
2. An actual occurrence
3. A piece of information presented as having objective reality

Truth

1. The body of real things, events, and facts, actuality
2. The property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality

Lie

1. False statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood
2. Something intended or serving to convey a false impression
3. An inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood

Propaganda

1. Information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

If truth could be established by requiring only that an assertion is true because it cannot be proved false, then any and almost every absurdity could be asserted as truth. We must therefore recognize that such assertions are neither truths nor untruths. They are non-truths. A good source on this topic is Karl Kopper:

Logical reasoning

We all know what logical reasoning is, but we do not often think about how logic is often misused to make us believe something that is not true. So examine these logical fallacies: Unsupported Assertions; Distorted Evidence; Isolated Examples; Misused Statistics; Red Herring (smokescreen); Circular Argument; Hasty Generalization; Stereotyping; False Dilemma; False Analogy; Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc; Slippery Slope; Halo Effect; Ad Hominem; Loaded language; Hyperbole; Straw Man; Ignoring the Issue; and finally, Non-sequitur.

Beware of Logical Fallacies...

Unsupported Assertion:

The absence of any argument to support a claim.
Example- Evolution is a proven fact (really, so prove it!)

Distorted Evidence:

Significant omissions or changes made in the evidence of an argument that alter its original intent.
Example- Taking the Bible out of context, over and over and over and over and over ...

Isolated Examples:

Nontypical or nonrepresentative examples that are used to 'prove' a general claim.
Example- A select few Christians are hypocrites, therefore, ALL Christians are hypocrites.

Misused Statistics:

Statistics that involve errors such as poor sampling, lack of significant differences, misuse of average, or misuse of percentages.

Example- All scientists are evolutionists (what kind of scientists did you sample?!? Evolutionary ones?)

Red Herring (smoke screen):

An irrelevant issue introduced into a controversy to divert attention from the real controversy.

Example- evolutionist in response to my website: You better stop
this mumbo-jumbo or I'm gong to pull out a can of whop [butt] on you, cause stone cold says so!

Circular Argument (begging the question):

Using the claim as the warrants or grounds for an argument.
Example-

Claim- The earth is old because the geological strata are old.
Warrant- the geological strata are old because the fossils are old.

Grounds- Fossils are old because the earth is old.

Hasty Generalization:

A claim that is made hastily based on an incomplete or insufficient amount of evidence.

Example- Microevolution (Moths change shades) occurs. Therefore, macroevolution must have occurred.

Stereotyping:

The assumption that what is considered to be true (or thought to be true) of a larger class is true for all members of that class.
Example- All Creationists are ignorant religious bigots.

False Dilemma:

A generalization that implies there are only two choices when there are more than two.

Example- Science Versus Religion, there is no middle ground or compromise. Either accept one or the other.

False Analogy:

The comparison of two different things that are not really comparable.

Example- Dawkins' "computer program = microbiology experiment" debacle

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc:

The assumption that because one event preceded another, the first event must cause the second.

Example- * (from 19th century) Because maggots would appear on meat days after it was cut, it was once thought that the meat caused the maggots- in other words the maggots came from the meat. Now of course we know that maggots do not come from meat, and given a certain treatment (such as the freezer), maggots will not appear on the meat.

Slippery Slope:

The assumption that just because one event occurs, it will automatically lead to a series of undesirable events even though there is no relationship between the action and the proposed events.

Example- Since Macroevolution was removed from required state curriculum in Kansas, Kansas students will now be dumber and less likely to succeed in school and life.

Halo Effect:

The assumption that just because you like or respect a person, whatever he or she says must be true.

Example- The Big Bang occurred because Steven Hawking says so.

Ad Hominem:

The claim that something must be false because the person who said it is not thought to be credible, regardless of the argument itself.

Example- Did it ever occur to you that you are a crazed religious nut? (and therefore I am not going to listen to a word you say, or try to refute your arguments).

Loaded Language:

Using language that has strong emotional connotations to evoke an emotional response from the reader.
Example- The decision to remove Macroevolution from required course material has made a joke out of Kansas.

Hyperbole:

A claim made with extreme exaggeration.
Example- The Kansas State Board of Education has made a joke out of science!

Straw Man:

An argument made in refutation that misstates the argument being refuted. Rather than refuting the real argument, the other side constructs a man of straw, which is easy to knock down and makes the other look bad.

Example- (micro)Evolution has been observed. You are stupid for not accepting evolution.

Ignoring the Issue:

An argument made in refutation that ignores the claim made by the other side.

Example-
Me: What Scientific evidence is there that something can come from nothing?
Evolutionist: I didn't think that creationism was based on scientific evidence.

Non Sequitur:
An argument that does not follow from its premises. In other words, the evidence provided does not support the claim.

Example-
Me: What Scientific evidence is there that life can come from non-living matter?
Evolutionist: Given time, anything can and will happen.