Epistemology

The pervasive term for politics in the U.S right now is "polarization." It is true that people are divided into sharply divergent and seemingly irreconcilable camps. But the division is not about political philosophy or values or aspirations for society. It's about reality, plain facts. 

 

I've mentioned before Habermas's concept of the "three worlds" of criticizable validity claims. These are intersubjective reality, the world "out there," what is true; the world of what ought to be, what we consider to be right and just and good; and what happens to please us as individuals, what we find to be sensually or psychically rewarding, what is beautiful. 

 

The First World is complex. It includes what we know from personal experience, from direct observation. The large majority of people, looking at the same scene from a similar vantage point, will make consistent observations. People who do not see what that large majority sees are deemed psychotic. The First World also includes deduction. We learn that if A and B are true, C must be true also, or perhaps that C is very likely. People observe that pregnancy only happens after sexual intercourse so if a woman is pregnant . . .  

 

Everybody knows that, but other relationships were deduced only after lengthy and complex study by people with expertise that most of us lack, in other words what we now call scientists. How do we know to trust what they say?  That isn't usually difficult, because science produces technology that works. You can believe in electronics because your computer and your phone and your TV work. You can believe in biology because the pills cured you. 

 

Beyond that, all of the pieces of science fit together. Scientists in different fields work together, come to understand enough of each other's work to make use of it, and find that combining their knowledge leads to new discoveries. Lay people can see that this vast international scientific institution exists; continually produces new discoveries and technological innovations; and that the millions of people who participate, in every nation, of every ideological stripe, find it consistent and reliable. For the scientific establishment to perpetrate a hoax on the public would require the cooperation of thousands or tens of thousands of people, every one of them cynically keeping the secret. It wouldn't work for very long anyway because their predictions would not come true.

Where politics has mostly been fought in the past is over Second World issues, what people think is just and how they believe society ought to be structured based on values; and on disputable matters, the fuzzy boundary of the First World, mostly consisting of what people predict will happen if certain policies are followed. If we provide for poor people's basic needs, will that discourage them from working? (Actually we now have empirical evidence about this and the answer is no, just the opposite in fact.) If we invade Iraq, will we be greeted as liberators and immediately establish a democracy allied with the U.S. and Israel?

 

Now, however, the divide is largely over verifiable First World facts. Who won the 2020 presidential election? Are Covid-19 vaccines safe and effective? Is anthropogenic climate change a hoax? Are Hillary Clinton and Tom Hanks part of a global pedophile ring that also kills the children and drinks their blood?  

I can tell you for a fact that Fox News, Newsmax and OANN continually spew lies, and a lot of people believe them. I know this, with complete confidence. And if you have time, I can tell you how I know it. But I despair that the people who believe their lies can be led to see the truth. This runs us into a brick wall.