Watering the Truth
January 25, 1998
Do you know the common name for dihydrogen monoxide? After I read the answer it was very obvious - I was just too lazy to figure it out. What would you do if someone presented you with a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide for the following reasons:
1. it can cause excessive sweating and vomiting;
2. it is a major component of acid rain;
3. it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state;
4. it can kill you if accidentally inhaled;
5. it contributes to erosion;
6. it decreases the effectiveness of automobile brakes;
7. it has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients.
If you know the common name of this chemical, then the answer is obvious. If you don’t - would you sign the petition? When this petition was presented to 50 people who were asked to support the ban of this chemical, 43 signed the petition, six were undecided, and only one knew that the chemical is H2O, commonly called “water.”
This simple experiment won first prize in a Science Fair and was conducted by Nathan Zonher, 14. It was titled “How Gullible Are We?” The answer seems obvious.
But wait! How can we know that this experiment was really conducted or that the conclusions are valid? Yes, the results of this experiment were distributed by the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and Skeptical Inquirer - but how do we know that they do not sometimes print fiction disguised as fact? Or we can search the internet and find a website: http://www.idahonews.com/042797/THE_WEST/2331.htm that provides additional evidence. But still, based on the evidence at our disposal, we cannot know if this story is absolutely true. Because the story was printed in fairly reliable sources, we might conclude that the story is believable and therefore might be true. We could phone young Zonher and ask him if this story is true. He could lie. Or, if we are so inclined, we could repeat this simple experiment with our friends or random folks on the street. If we obtain similar results and come to the same conclusion as young Zonher, does that prove his assertion that folks are gullible? No! However, it might increase our confidence in accepting his conclusion and the likelihood that the experiment was real, reports are accurate and the conclusions reliable.
A working notion among many leading scientist/philosophers is that absolute truth is an ideal that can only be approached. We can never know that a given proposition is true because - according to the methods of science - all ideas are subject to replacement or modification when or if new information reveals a better idea. Does this mean that we are doomed to eternal confusion - unable to make decisions on important matters in our life? Of course not! We gather the best information that we can on any subject and make practical decisions based on that information. “If it works, it is right,” is a commandment of the pragmatists. Because an idea is useful, practical, or profitable, does not make it “true,” but it means that if we use this idea again, we can expect that it may again be useful, practical, or profitable. Then some smart guy modifies this same idea so that it is more useful, practical, or profitable and we will discard the old idea and substitute the new one. You can take almost any modern appliance to test this notion. Compare the early computers to modern ones or a primitive telephone compared to a new one. They were all modified in a step-wise fashion by rejecting the old model and replacing it with a new one. All ideas, including the so-called “laws of science” are subject to replacement.
But to me, one of the most important consequences of Zohner’s study is that we might expect groups in our society to use his study to convince us of the “truth” of whatever they are trying to promote. The National Education Association might use this study to reinforce the notion that because we do not all know what dihydrogen monoxide is, this deficiency must be rectified immediately by paying higher salaries to our teachers. “No human can claim to be educated unless he/she knows all about dihydrogen monoxide,” they might say. Rush Limbaugh might use it to demonstrate the gullibility of environmentalist “whackos.” Environmentalists might understand the power of Zohner’s simple petition method to demonstrate the narrow-minded greed of the “money-grubbing” entrepreneurs in our society.
If you can demonstrate the hazards of water to expose the gullibility of environmentalists, could you not use the same method to expose the gullibility of entrepreneurs? Instead of water, we might choose some toxic elements such as arsenic (As). A petition could be circulated asking if we should remove Governmental limitations on the every-day use of “As” in children’s nurseries based on its benefits:
1. it has been used in the treatment of human disease;
2. it controls roaches and other pests that carry childhood diseases;
3. it controls germs to which children may be exposed;
4. it is used in the production of semiconductors used in electrical child-surveillance equipment;
5. it is used as a laser material the may find use in the development of safe, children’s toys;
6. it is used in the production of glass eyes for use in children’s dolls.
7. it has often been used in the production of parts of children’s toys.
If the results of this petition agreed with our goal of embarrassing entrepreneurs, we might use the results to demonstrate their gullibility. If the data does not agree with our unobjective goal, we can always discard the data. (You might be shocked to know how often data is discarded by “scientists” and non-scientists to get rid of embarrassing data).
But in my mind, all of these organizations would be guilty of using true facts to lead the public to a one-sided conclusion. Even if we agree with the notion that teachers should be paid higher salaries, or environmentalists should be silenced or that entrepreneurs should be controlled, we might do well to consider the following: “Is it morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it.” (E. W. Teale. 1955. In “Circle of the Seasons.”) Good question! But, why limit Teale’s question to the currency of money? Why not include power, prestige, control of others and other motives along with Teale’s “money?” I might rephrase Teale’s notion of morality to read: Is it morally or ethically unhealthy for a society and the individuals in the society to ignore the truth of ideas? I would not be alone in suggesting that the good of both individuals and society is best served by openness to new ideas, but with strong criticism of all ideas, and strict standards for judging “truth.” I lean toward accepting the evidence of history over the last few hundred years to support this idea. One test that we can all give ourselves is to ask: Is there any time in the history of our world when we would rather live than at the present? Although my own experience is biased (I have only lived in this world since 1936) I would not be willing to give up the (relative) benefits of modern health care, clean food, modern technology, comfortable housing, and more objective thinking that generally characterizes our modern society to live in a primitive, smoky hut and die - worn out - at age 30.
Anyway, this story of dihydrogen monoxide has triggered discussion in the press and on the internet. The economics writer James Glassman (Washington Post News Service, Oct. 22, 1997) coined the term “Zohnerism,” which he defines as “the use of a true fact to lead a scientifically and mathematically ignorant public to a false conclusion.” Can you detect Glassman’s bias in this definition? It appears to me that he is suggesting that the “public” should be better educated - an educated citizen should know that dihydrogen monoxide is water - as if by knowing this fact the public will unfailingly make correct decisions about other important questions. Maybe I am rationalizing my own ignorance and laziness, but I do not believe that the only one who answered the question correctly in the petition was the one out of 50 that knew the that stuff was water. The six who were undecided were equally correct in not signing the petition to ban water. Does this mean that because these six were indecisive that we should now worship indecisiveness? No! I don’t think so - we need decision-makers. But, maybe we also need inquisitive, skeptical, decision-makers. Rather than make bold decisions with unverified information, maybe it is often best to make no decision at all. Or, maybe the best thing to do is to query an encyclopedia or chemistry book for a definition of dihydrogen monoxide before making the decision to ban water.
But also, let’s not be too harsh in our judgment of those who voted for the banning of water. After all, this was a petition presented by a 14-year old. How serious can we take the petition of a 14-year-old? Some who voted to ban water may have taken an easy out just to rid themselves of the pesky kid. Others, knowing that this was not a serious national referendum, might have come to a quick and spurious conclusion. I find it difficult to believe that, in a national vote where the merits of banning water would have been openly discussed, that 88 percent would have voted to ban water as in Zhoner’s experiment.
I feel some comfort in knowing that there are built-in, safety mechanisms which generally prevent Democratic societies from committing some major blunders such as banning water. This conclusion is not meant to justify our ignorance of science and mathematics - of course, there is always room to improve our educational system. But the importance of knowing that dihydrogen monoxide is water must be balanced against knowing other bits and pieces of information vital to the survival of our civilization. Where do we best invest our mental energies?
I personally do not wish to live in a world governed exclusively by chemists or entomologists or lazy petition-takers. As much as I fear the consequences of human ignorance, maybe I fear control of my life by authoritative figures in government, business, and religion - who often use selective facts to convince us of the “truth” of their views - even more.
A very interesting consequence of this approach to the search for truth is that even this “scientific method” is subject to the same rules. If a better method is found, the current scientific method will also be replaced!
No comments:
Post a Comment