| |
A fascinating issue is involved here, quite apart from the issue of whether Terri Schiavo is to live or die. As I began reading various accounts of the case -- and starting, as I did, with no preconceived conclusion -- I noticed that the same thing kept happening to me. I'd read one article or account, pro or con Terri being allowed to die, and think that the writer was making sense, that his arguments added up, and so I agreed that she should live (or die). Then on to the next opposing article -- with the same result; the arguments made sense, they added up to a compelling case, and I agreed that she should die (or live). After this seesawing had happened several times, I began to understood what was happening.
Each article did present facts, but in each article the facts were highly selective. Thus, one writer would say that X number of doctors had said that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state -- but would not mention that Y number of doctors had denied it. Another writer would say that her husband was suspected of beating her, perhaps of causing the trauma that led to her present state -- but would not mention that several courts had cleared him of such charges. In a word, each article presented, as fact, information which was true but was only part of the truth.
What makes this phenomenon important is the psycho-epistemology of the writers. I do not think that the writers, for the most part, were lying or deliberately distorting the evidence. I think that when one is overwhelmingly convinced of a certain position, for whatever reasons, there is a tendency -- unless it is consciously and vigorously guarded against -- to NOTICE and therefore to report only the information that will support that position. One will have some sort of intellectual contact with conflicting information, but it does not fully register, it is not considered relevant or important.
I think we all do this to some extent. And I believe we will continue to do it, until and unless we are aware of it. And if it is a dangerous mistake with regard to Terri Schiavo, where we at Solo have no influence to speak of, how much more dangerous with regard to, say, political issues, where we are in a position to influence public opinion and where we have a vote.
Without getting into an issue I refuse to discuss further, because it has been discussed to death, let me say that I see this same psycho-epistemological mistake all over the controversy about the Iraq war. It took me a very long time to make up my mind about whether I approved or disapproved of the war. I followed pretty much the same pattern as I've been following about Terri; that is, I'd read one article, think that its information and reasoning made sense -- and so I was for (or against) the war. I kept seesawing until I realized the nature of the error being made by both sides. Each side focused on, noticed, considered relevant, those facts that favored its position and did not focus on, notice, or consider relevant those facts that dis-favored its position.
In both the Terri Schiavo case and in the case of the war, there ARE facts favoring both sides. Neither are cut and dried issues; both sides have valid points to make. But both sides tend to omit relevant information.
I am not -- definitely not -- suggesting that, the above being the case, one cannot arrive at certainty. One can, but it is difficult to do so until and unless one is aware of the mistake being made, probably in one's own thinking as well as in the thinking of the pundits, in the marshaling of the factual information available.
In many issues, there are not two sides worth considering. I don't have to read pro and con opinions on the validity of cold-blooded murder in order to arrive at a decision. But in many issues that crucially concern us, there ARE two sides. We can't consider them while leaving our perceptiveness at the door. Which means, in these instances, we have to notice and monitor what we do mentally with the information available to us. We have to notice whether or not we begin our consideration with a bias, and, if so, to check that bias at the door. We have to notice whether or not we are considering ALL the relevant information, or only that which favors our bias.
Yes, I'm aware that some of you might say that this is almost self-evident. We have to be objective, you might say; we all know that. But objectivity is not simple and easy; it is complex and often difficult because it requires that we be the honorable monitor of our own thought processes.
Barbara
|
|
