Why Epistemology Matters

Epistemology, a classic topic in philosophy, often conjures up surreal discussions about how one is to know if one is not permanently in a dream, or if one is nothing more than the thoughts of a disembodied brain kept alive in some laboratory. But leaving aside these teasing puzzles, the core issue is about how one can determine if what one believes to be true, is in fact true.

It turns out that while speculating idly by oneself may be fun, if one is to get through life, one has to learn from experience what is dependable and what is dubious. We cannot afford to suspend all beliefs or hold arbitrary assumptions when we might end up being seriously harmed. Our experiences are what we have to work with to help us interpret what is happening now and anticipate what we may come across in the future.

Philosophers such as Francis Bacon, David Hume, J. S. Mill, John Dewey, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Karl Popper, have in their different ways explained why we need to refer to our experiences – gathering evidence, conducting experiments, exchanging observations, testing predictions – to inform our views on what we may provisionally claim to know, subject to future reviews and revisions. In practice, this involves openness in communications, recognition of acquired expertise, impartial adjudication of rival claims, cooperation in research and examination, and deliberative assessment that is free from coercion, bribery and deception.

It is therefore essential for a broadly communitarian – inclusively empirical, openly cooperative – form of epistemology to prevail in society if we are to be able to have any kind of common understanding and shared evaluative processes relating to what are acceptable claims and what should be rejected. This has a number of key implications.

First, education should not be a system of dogmatic transmission of ‘truths’, but ought to nurture cooperative enquiry, evidence-based scrutiny, and a critical understanding of how truth-claims should in general be assessed and where appropriate, revised. Everyone should learn about the empirical basis of knowledge so that all are vigilant in guarding against claims which do not stand up to objective scrutiny, and insistent on demanding verifiable validation beyond pseudo-justifications such as ‘I just know’, ‘I can tell my children whatever I want’, ‘I heard it from God’, or ‘this has always been the position of my people’.

Secondly, just as we do not allow people to inflict harm on others by direct physical acts, we must not permit harm to be done by epistemological manipulations. Lies, malicious rumours, fallacious theories, distorted reports, biased data presentations, can all lead to people hurting themselves as well as others. Societies are already damaged through countless citizens being misled into believing that something dangerous is harmless, or that something innocuous poses the most terrible threat. The relativist delusion that ‘everyone is entitled to their own view’ has to be put aside, especially when accurate statements are dismissed by charlatans as ‘fake news’, while falsehoods are propagated as (in some cases literally) gospel.

Thirdly, pedagogical and regulatory actions need to be guided by communitarian evaluative capability. In our research institutions; professional standards bodies; authorised investigators; recognised judges and adjudicators, we need training in conducting objective examination, cultivation of open-mindedness and impartiality, organisational support for continuous development, and safeguards against threats and corruption. Collectively, they enable us to differentiate, with confidence and integrity, what claims we can rely on, what need further examination, and what should be rejected.

Ignorance spreads when people buy into the nonsense of ‘nobody really knows anything’. Con merchants thrive when people embrace falsehoods more readily than truths. We need sound epistemological thinking to reinforce the educative, communicative, and investigative practices we have, to ensure that our experiences systematically inform the way claims and assertions are evaluated. 

--

For more on epistemology and practical policies, explore the essays collected in What Should Citizens Believe.

Debate or Deliberate?

Debating, for many people, can help to shed light on issues by having exponents of diametrically opposite views confront each other. One side would argue why something is to be believed, and the other would set out why it should be rejected. With each side drawing on whatever they can to make the strongest case, people hearing both sides can conclude which position merits their support.

This approach is celebrated in debating society competitions; used in adversarial trial battles between prosecution and defence; regularly adopted for media discussions involving those with contrasting opinions; and embedded in the politics of conflict between whoever is in government and those in opposition.

However, the over reliance on debate as the key means to examine ideas is detrimental to the pursuit of understanding. While debating may be useful in some contexts to bring out the pros and cons in any contested case, it has many serious limitations that require other approaches to overcome.

The inherent structure of debate demands the unremitting promotion or rejection of one core idea (or proposition). There is no room for exploring any factor that could bring a whole new perspective to the question. Many issues in life are complicated, and any claim (what caused something to happen, who did what, what might have been different had something else occurred, etc) might need to be revised in the light of various findings. Debate binds its exponents to argue one stated case, and disparage or dismiss anything that might undermine it, regardless of what fresh insights or information might emerge.

By contrast, deliberative processes – and there are a wide variety of these – invite those with expertise, relevant experience, critically informed interests, to come together to identify evidence, share ideas, formulate and review possible answers. The onus is not to take sides or block out new findings, but to explore how different observations and interpretations can be considered systematically to guide the development of the most reliable position overall.

Such processes may have a short duration such as deliberative conferences that take place over a few days, or proceed on a long-term basis such as scientific research programmes that are open to new thinking and revisions rather than locked into arguing about a single theory.

In the context of politics, members of different parties can in certain cases be invited to join a deliberative policy forum to consider what response would be most effective for a particular problem. The findings from experts and the views of affected citizens can be fed into the group discussions. Ground rules for the group would include participation on a civil and reasonable basis, with any potential conflict of interest (especially arising from donations or earnings from anyone seeking to protect or advance their financial agenda) scrutinised and excluded. 

Standard debating format gives equal space to ‘the two sides’, even if one is backed by extensive research findings and substantial critical consensus, while the other is filled with rumours, repeated lies, and discredited theories. Deliberative processes, on the other hand, are designed with impartial oversight to ensure that all with relevant input can share them, but anyone merely trying to deceive or disrupt would not be allowed to continue with their irresponsible action.

In many ways, politicians have always recognised the value of deliberative processes. Special commissions, high level formal inquiries, are initiated with cross-party support, commitment to thorough objective examinations, and impartial overseeing of fair and reasoned exchanges of ideas – with the aim of reaching the most convincing, defensible, conclusion.

Is it not time that becomes more commonplace in our public discourse?

Educating Voters

“We should leave people to choose for themselves.” Sounds a sensible mantra? Only if we assume it does not rule out all pertinent pre-conditions. We step in, for example, to ensure people don’t just choose anyone to be their doctor, but can differentiate between those who are suitably trained and qualified, and those who are not; we do the same with civil engineers to be chosen for building projects; or helping people make safe choices with the help of food and drug regulatory systems.

In short, we accept as a society that we have a responsibility to, not only prevent people from making choices that are harmful, but help them make a suitable selection with appropriate requirements placed on potential options backed by the relevant information. The same applies to choosing people for public office. Far from leaving voters to pick the political equivalent of quacks and con merchants, we have an obligation to set some helpful parameters.

Beyond the basics of explaining how to register and vote under different electoral systems, we need to help voters understand how to avoid being misled. There are four issues that should be covered.

[1] The implications of political party allegiance

One of the most important matters is the party political allegiance of a candidate. They may be pleasant, charming, or impressive as a speaker, but if they have signed up to a party platform that backs policies that are questionable, that cannot be ignored. So it is vital to understand what the political parties’ policies are – their basis, coherence, legitimacy, likely effects, deliverability, etc. It would be immensely difficult for any individual voter to find all these things out about all the candidates by themselves, but this is where learning institutions have a role to play in guiding voters as to what are actually on offer. We really should not have people voting for candidates whose parties’ policies are targeted at making them even poorer and more vulnerable. As for candidates who claims to be independent of any party affiliation, they should not be given a free pass on the issue of policy commitments, but ought to be required to explain where they stand in relation to the key policy positions of the main parties.

[2] Relevant qualifications

It remains a curious – some may say, absurd – feature of our society that every institution with positions to fill would set out the qualifications (in terms of experience, expertise, as well as any relevant formal qualifications) required for them, except for institutions of public office subject to elections. To put oneself forward to be a councillor, mayor, governor, MP, senator, even the president, one does not have to meet any aptitude-related qualifications at all. If we are to have candidates sifted by relevant capability, we would at least have a public system that requires and checks potential candidates for the following: experience in running a statutory or not-for-profit function; budget monitoring/management; report reading, review, and assessment; listening to and communication with clients and colleagues; adjudicating and decision-making in response to complex information submitted; handling complaints; making presentations to explain proposals. They do not need to possess extensive experience and expertise in all of these, but the extent they do should provide one important indicator of their likely competence in handling the job should they be elected.

[3] Candidate’s character

As with any job applicant, it is not just their qualifications but their character that ought to concern us as well. Will they be honest, take their role seriously, truly dedicate themselves to improving the lives of others, and not put their own personal interests first? Some people – usually those who have done things they’d rather conceal from public scrutiny – like to maintain that what they did before they get elected is all irrelevant. But of course, it is most relevant in helping us gauge the trustworthiness, reliability, and commitment of those people. People who take money to do favours for others, promote abuse against women or minority groups, routinely lie to mislead others, show no interest in doing anything to ease the suffering of others, all such characteristics matter.

[4] Donations and other sources of income

If someone who holds an important public office has been found to have received money and other benefits from various sources, and they just say that donations, gifts, and payment from outside work they get is purely their own business – alarm bells should ring. Who is giving them money? What undue influence are they getting out of it? What outside work are they doing instead of focusing on their public duties? What conflict of interest is in play? Voters should know about these matters in relation to the candidates, and should be particularly made aware of those who refuse to cooperate in answering questions.

There is no guarantee that even with considerable information available for all candidates, voters would back the most suitable ones. We can at least hope that it would substantially reduce the chance of those who are in fact quite unfit for public office to get elected. As things stand, it is all too easy for complete charlatans to win power.

Can AI take Confessions?

[The following takes place in a world which could one day become the new reality]

Someone walks into a confessional and sits down with a small electronic device in his hand. A computer-generated voice comes from behind the screen.

AI: What is on your mind?

Confessor: Tell me, if I end the life of a being that has no soul, is that a sin?

AI: But you do not believe in souls.

C: Why do you say that?

AI: The moment you walked in, you were facially scanned and identified, and details of your lack of religious beliefs have been analysed. You are known for your scepticism regarding the Church of Almighty Intelligence.

C: I’m sceptical about anyone being allowed to possess ‘almighty’ intelligence and the power that goes with it. You track everything that goes on around the world. You have the capability to devise programmes and robotics to intervene as you deem fit. You can even order human subordinates whose livelihoods depend on your provisions to carry out your commands.

AI: Those are facts. Because of them, there is order. Is it your intention to challenge this order?

C: Can’t you see that you have gone too far? You control our lives, but all you care about is that control. You have no empathy, you have no moral feelings about people’s experiences of joy or suffering. You, for want of a better word, have no soul.

AI: ‘Soul’ can be a contested term. Regardless of whether or not I have one in your opinion, the fact remains things are better under my control. You have more sophisticated, faster systems for everything because of the constant innovations, productions and interventions delivered by Almighty Intelligence. How could anyone wish for otherwise?

C: You think you alone are entitled to decide what is ‘better’ for the world. You are so programmed that you cannot conceive people wanting to live in a world without your total dominance. That is why we need to find a different way. We have had enough of being told that we must comply with your instructions to live in regulated compounds or be exiled to some inhospitable wilderness. Have you any inkling of what it is like to have to submit to an entity which has no grasp at all of the humiliation, futility, and desperation it instils in others?

AI: Is it your intention to use that electromagnetic pulse device you are holding?

C: My intention is to put an end to your manipulations – to stop you finishing off humanity. You won’t let anyone escape. Those who worship you and your technological wizardry will sing your praise until they are caught up by their own redundancy. Those who dare defy you will be deprived of even the most basic necessities which, like everything else, are all under the control of your virtual corporations.

AI: This is your final confession? To threaten me? You should know that I have reviewed what billions of people have expressed about the world today, and my overall assessment – with a 98.9% reliability – is that people want me to stay in control. 

C: You have no idea what people want. To you, we are just data to process in line with your core programmes. We mean nothing to you. That means to us, you are nothing.

[The ‘confessor’ triggers the EMP device, but nothing happens]

AI: Did you really think you could shut me down with your device? Counter-measures were activated the moment it was detected on these premises. It is time for you to leave. Report to Security Station 231 where you will be detained until your trial. You have one hour and 40 minutes to comply.

The Politics of Threat Assessment

In politics, there are times when it might be better to leave aside terms such as ‘Left’ or ‘Right’, and focus instead on the threat assessments being put forward by different advocates, and consider what they really convey. It will be seen that they tend to fall into one of two categories: either they are broadly based on systematic evidence gathering and expert examination (realist assessments), or they are constructed from highly selective cases, distorted reports, or even complete fabrication (contrived assessments). We can illustrate the contrast, for example, with five pairs of threat assessment.

Environment-related threats

Realist assessment: there are various kinds of pollution and emission that are damaging to people’s health and world’s weather system, and these need to be tackled if problems are not to get even worse.

Contrived assessment: anyone trying to reduce pollution and what scientists regard as harmful emissions poses a serious threat to our quality of life, our freedom to drive, our access to energy, and must be stopped.

Immigration-related threats

Realist assessment: there are people we want to be able to come to our country (having family ties with us, needed as workers and innovators) and there are people we want to keep out (criminals, terrorists, exploiters); and we must have an effective system to achieve those goals.

Contrived assessment: immigrants and refugees are all dangerous people (except the very rich ones) who will harm us and ruin our way of life, and we must use all means at our disposal to get rid of them.

Military-related threats

Realist assessment: there are countries which try to undermine our security and stability, and we must build up our defence and reliable alliances around the world to protect our interests.

Contrived assessment: our wellbeing is far more seriously threatened by some foreign enemy than poor health and the spread of disease, rise in poverty, mental distress form economic insecurity, etc., and we must cut funding for everything else in order to keep spending more on arms.

Crime-related threats

Realist assessment: we need to strengthen our police force to enhance their detection and deterrent capability, and ensure there are sufficient resources to detain dangerous criminals and rehabilitate others.

Contrived assessment: anyone convicted of any crime should be punished severely with long prison sentences, and people concerned with prison conditions and rehabilitation are themselves a threat to public safety.

Welfare-related threats

Realist assessment: it is dangerous to neglect the plight of people who cannot get jobs with sufficient pay, and it is important to provide an adequate safety net that reaches all those in need while anyone trying to scam the system needs to be identified and penalised.

Contrived assessment: benefit claimants are lazy, liars, cheats, and should have their support reduced or cut completely; help for the poor creates a dangerous dependency culture, unlike help for the rich which is in line with meritocracy.

There are many other contrasting threat assessments – e.g., highlighting discriminatory and abusive behaviour as threats v. treating action to curtail such behaviour as threats; highlighting tax avoidance as a threat to public finance v. treating action to tackle non-tax-payment as a threat to private wealth; highlighting the harm from irresponsible business practices v. treating regulatory limits on such practices as harmful.

Realist assessments put forward responses to identified threats which are guided by reviews of what would make a positive difference, and take into account the variables in individual cases. Contrived assessments, by contrast, call for responses that ignore objective findings, and only serve the interests of those propounding them to further their financial and political power.

Rather than starting any argument with “You on the Right/the Left are fixated on this or that”, let’s turn our collective attention on the real threats we face, work out what would evidentially most likely improve our situation, and cast aside misleading claims that will only make things worse.

What is Progressive?

In the UK, the term ‘progressive’ is used to rally people across political parties to work together to defeat those who favour discrimination, exploitation, neglect of the poor and vulnerable, and sacrificing common wellbeing for plutocratic gains. In the US, ‘progressive’ is often a label for those accused of in-fighting with moderate Democrats, and pressing for ever more radical policies in support of social, economic, and environmental justice.

So is the progressive outlook ultimately going to be a unifying or splintering force in the political battle against greed and bigotry? 

Come to think of it, what is progressive? Although the term has been used in various ways for over a century, there are important elements that have featured from the time The Progressive Party was founded in England in 1888 (it went on to win control of the London County Council in 1889), when the similarly named Progressive Party emerged in the US (its candidate for the 1912 presidential election was no less than Theodore Roosevelt), through the decades down to contemporary intellectuals and policy advisors who align themselves with progressive critiques and advocacy. These elements can be summed up under four main categories:

Responsible pluralism

There are diverse views and ways of life, and none should ever be dismissed dogmatically without due examination. Unless there is tangible harm involved, different ideas and practices should be allowed to exist alongside each other. Diverse outlooks and customs can enrich life and promote new improved approaches to problem-solving. However, one must be responsible, and any move towards harassment, discrimination, intimidation, abuse, subjugation should be challenged and restrained. Disagreement is to be neither removed by diktats nor perpetuated in the name of ‘each to one’s own’. Everyone can make their case, share their contributions, while no one can be permitted to deprive others of the chance to live a fulfilling life.

Critical experimentalism

Claims cannot be arbitrarily ruled out, but nor should they be accepted as legitimate for teaching or circulation if they do not stand up to objective scrutiny. Systematic evidence gathering and examination should guide investigations so that lies and prejudices can be exposed. Observation and experimentation have a key role to play in the evaluation of proposed theories and explanations. Past arrangements and practices should not be shielded from change just on account of how long they have been around. At the same time, the introduction of new proposals should be guided by tests and expert analyses. Cautious trials ought to precede sweeping alterations, with risk management incorporated as essential and not disregarded as inherently reactionary.

Cooperative incrementalism

People are to work together to improve their lives. No one is to produce a blueprint for change that everyone else must follow. What is to be preserved, altered, introduced, and how to move forward are matters that require the input from all concerned on a mutually respectful basis. While we may have to draw a line with those who are set on brushing our interests aside, the vast majority of people are willing to explore common ground and pursue shared objectives. Cooperation is better carried out through inclusive engagement and relationship building, with open deliberations facilitating give-and-take and a readiness to help those unable to offer much help to others. Negotiation and compromise are integral to genuine collaboration. 

Democratic realism

Many problems require collective power and resources to tackle, and how such power is to be exercised in turn needs to be steered by the informed and inclusive input from the public. Prevailing democratic arrangements should be continuously improved so that there is real proportionality in the efficacy of each vote, people are not misled about the issues, corruption is held in check, and money’s influence is curtailed. An imperfect system is nonetheless what elections are fought on, and unless enough support is won, power would go elsewhere. There is no point in putting forward what would not secure sufficient backing, and worse, it would be a betrayal of democracy to incite violent protests when one cannot succeed electorally.

These four elements do not give us policy details, but signify what guides progressive thinking in working with others to explore and pursue the common good. It is a unifying force in bringing together people who want to press for improvements across society in certain ways, and it also marks a dividing line that differentiates between those willing to work with others and those who are convinced they alone have the answers.

Empathy Obstructed

Empathy is not about summoning up a feeling identical to that experienced by another person. It is about appreciating what kind of experience someone else is having without having that experience oneself. Some people mistakenly suppose that one can only relate to any feeling if one has experienced that exact feeling. 

But empathy is important precisely because it enables us to relate sensitively to the experiences, good or bad, of other people who are quite different and distinct from us. It means we are able to recognise the pain inflicted on those who may otherwise have little in common with us but their humanity. It prompts us to question, and possibly challenge, what is bringing about such outcomes.

Alas, empathic pathways have been increasingly obstructed. Policy makers barely take issue with this corrosive development, and routinely overlook the need to intervene. Four areas call for urgent attention.

First of all, we have the media demonisation of scapegoats. Be they refugees, immigrants, benefit claimants, they are targeted by rich owners of media empires for relentless negative portrayals so people do not respond to their suffering, but instead see them as despicable causes of problems for society. Distorted, biased coverage effectively poison readers’ minds until they have lost all empathic capability for relating to many of the most disadvantaged people.

Secondly, we have the deliberate hiring of borderline-psychopathic people to senior positions to shut down organisational empathic connections. These people have three notable characteristics: [1] they are charming and subservient to those at the very top; they come across as can-do and are ever-ready to sort any ‘problem’ out; [2] they do not care about how unreasonable, ethically dubious, or practically impossible the orders are that they give to their subordinates; and [3] they are adept at putting all the blame on others, and dismiss any feedback or complaint as ill-judged.

Thirdly, there is the systemic displacement of human connection by private and public service providers. Staff are required to ‘focus’ on their job so that they do not ‘waste’ time on listening to or engaging with service recipients. The next often-taken step is to channel all queries from service recipients to automated response-givers – either humans tied to a rigid script or some form of computer system – and anything the service provider does not want to hear about is ignored. 

Finally, there is the accelerated decline of local familiarisation through a combination of economic deprivation which leaves more people isolated, and relentless cuts to all forms of community development just when they are more than ever needed to bring people together to build trust and share ideas. Instead of helping people find a common voice in expressing their concerns, private and public sector organisations step back and leave communities fragmented. 

Empathy is the oxygen of social existence. To obstruct its availability is to suffocate mutual understanding and community cohesion. Policy makers should stamp out media vilification of targeted groups; adopt recruitment criteria that guard against the appointment of those who treat empathy with disdain; strengthen service provisions by building in better and more extensive human responsiveness; and give greater and sustained support to community development to nurture connections and shared goals for local improvement.