Truth is a hard game. Its hard to get to do experiments which will be good enough to verify and test the existence of truth. Of the impossibly long list of things to be verified in our lives as human beings, material world questions sometimes could be relatively simple as compared to the remaining. How far does a ball fall when thrown at a certain direction, is a well known example. The thrown ball behaves very well as per our predictions. The more accurately one can set up the experiment, the more accurate the result gets with respect to our rather simplistic theories. In fact we have the uncommon benefit here that you can set up the experiment so very well (with simple precision tools and calibrated instruments) that the theory’s weaknesses are exposed (neglecting effects of air drag, for example). Yet, not all experiments in the material world are so easy to work with. Most of the science as we know it today, as practiced and taught, are not experiments which the students or teachers do for themselves, but as dogmatic beliefs.
Check this out, do you really by Newton’s laws? Most of us will say yes, but how many of us have actually checked it by experimenting themselves? So aren’t we just like mere believers in ‘myths’ of the day? The rationalists among us would argue, we can verify the laws if we want to, that the procedures for such have been available and kind of practiced in science class rooms over hundreds of years, etc etc. But please tell me the ratio of people believing in the validity of netwon’s laws vs. people having the luxury of testing it for themselves? Add to it the challenge that while Newton’s laws can be tested affordably, the 100s of other laws of the material world built on these fundamental laws have been popularly tested even by lesser and lesser of the people. Do you get my confusion?
Resources for experiments could still be arranged. But what to do about motivation? As a mere human, if some 10s of people of high repute or relative power as compared to me tell me if something is true, I will tend to believe it. It is not hard to convince me or anyone else for that matter, of strange and fascinating stories. Of course over the years, thanks to a healthy skepticism developed within me due to the active practice of indulging in healthy self-doubt, some stories are not convincing, but most others are, I shall admit. Let’s say the ideas of relativity. How much do I know about it? Well, I know some equations and some concepts within it. Have I verified it for myself? I guess there are only a handful of people in the world who have actually done any real experimentation to verify some aspects of it. But many millions of people will claim to have understood it. It makes a great story, with many trained pundits agreeing to it that its a great believable story. One may argue to the world’s end that the basic principles that relativity is based on are well proven and thus with logical construction one can rest one’s trust in it. Relativity does explain a lot about the universe we live in, they would argue. I agree with this part, except that I am not convinced that we have been actually testing the fundamental principles for ourselves, enough. Rationalists would argue that not everyone needs to test all theories, in fact science as an institution is known to practice high merit and an almost sadistic degree of self-checking of science laws within the community. I get the rationalist’s point, but I also wonder what is that percentage of science checkers Vs the population of people like us who couldn’t experiment for themselves? Its a very tiny fraction of the population I bet. A lot of the thoughts we share are some form of beliefs that we think are truths. If I do come across someone who has herself/himself done the experiments and checked out the fundamentals of a theory, I shall be very trustful and happy to place my (blind) faith in that person’s work and conviction about the theory. Even with the best of intentions, my contention is that, most of scientific knowledge spread in the world today is no different from myths and beliefs in the minds of the people. We may even begin to doubt as to how then one could define what is a verifiable truth?
There is a beautiful Hindi movie called ‘Aakhon Dekhi’. It brilliantly portrays the challenges of truth which a man struggles with. “I will only believe in what I see with my own eyes”, he decides. The transformative immediateness of this realization is worth a view. If only testing by bodily senses were assumed to be the sole method of truth, just as the original practitioners of the sciences prescribed, how would our world look like? Certainly not like the current world. In our classrooms we talk about syllabuses and experiments and theories and so on. We learn for many years in institutions, practicing the arts of keeping articulate and detailed theories in our brains, linked together with best in world stories and logical sequences. Believing in our teachers, who believe in their teachers, who believe in scholars and so on. We are so convinced of the validity of the stories, that we do not think we need to check them out ourselves. Where does this immense ability of believe come from? And if we are so damn obsessive believers, then why does science claim to not be based on beliefs?
To me realizing this shallowness in my very own knowledge helps me let go of the many inferiority complexes I have with my peers in the sciences who definitely are are far too intelligent, accomplished, knowledgeable and insightful in its subjects. However, I feel great awe and intimidation in front of those people who have spent immense amounts of time working around their 5 bodily senses to learn and practice a subject, such as farmers, artisans, teachers in the arts of teaching, technicians, etc. The humble plumbers, electricians, repair guy, home makers, mothers, etc would be in that list. If experiential truth could be measured, some of the world would be immensely poor, while some would be immensely rich. We may wonder if our current social system places a similar value to these different classes of people.
I believe that we have evolved as a species deeply embedded in the practice and perpetuation of beautiful myths. I am just paraphrasing Youval Harari’s ideas to some extent. We could not have survived if we were not believers in our core thoughts. I say so because it is hard to think otherwise. Not everyone can experiment and be crazy enough to spend immense amounts of resources into verifying or testing out one’s numerous beliefs. Look at the kind of money being spent into universities and research labs to figure out what goes on inside an atom, while most of us are happy to believe in the first story that comes out of these hallowed institutions of knowledge. Just as we would respond to priests or to people in authority. Beliefs are probably the most efficient method for information to exist and survive in a dynamic mortal world. The oldest stories which have lasted to our age are powerful examples of beliefs and practices that have worked and held tribes, communities, and people together (at the cost of those who believed in contemporary counter stories). I imagine belief and trust as being core to the social glue that bonds and helps make our groups as super-organizations. Read ‘social organisms’, the idea that we are mere working slaves and carriers of truely living mega ideas, which reside in our minds, and control us in so many ways.
Rationality and science are modern words. The practice of such is intended to discover for ourselves, with our own 5 senses, or at least with our own realization of strong ideas and stories. But the practice of rationality and science is costly, and not the privilege of those with an empty stomach. Only some people can do the experiment, others can only follow the elite practioners of the elite arts of the sciences. This is the same reason that rationality does not sell well. The precautions needed to stem out COVID weren’t taken seriously and rationally till it became a scary thing. And even after the scare and the fears of COVID, rationality was not a common theme in the lives and practices of the billions of the earth with respect to COVID. We are ‘fashionable’ minds, and we follow what our peers do. We mimic like crazy, not even realizing we imitate so genuinely. We believe in blending in the crowd, via beliefs in shared common stories. Stories are our bonds. Rationally asks us to separate from the crowd of peers, a task that involves immense personal risks, unpleasantness and fear, and worse, the risk of painful social exclusion.
Is there a way to make more sense of this world, for those of us with lesser privileges? A basic sense of rationality is essential, but may not affordable. Can we yet value our myths loving brain, as not necessarily being a bad thing? Can we stop judging people who may not feel very rational? Can we accept irrationality as a very genuine expression of who we are?