John Lennon Quote and some thoughts.

[ajqtrz]

"I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now? ~John Lennon

This was posted recently and it made me think. Here's are some short thoughts.

First, in an age of radical skepticism I like the idea of believing "in things where are not yet seen." It opens the door to all sorts of possibilities and I, for one, like the possible worlds I can imagine, some times more than the world I experience. Dreams are worlds in waiting and I like dreaming.

Second, as the philosopher Jean Paul Sartre said, "you know what a person really believes by how they act." If I believe in fairies I'd spend a lot of time in my garden looking for them. I don't, so I have to say my belief is a bit smaller than John Lennon's. Still, if you ever meet a fairy I'd love to hear about it.

Third, while I do believe dreams and nightmares are real as dreams and nightmares, I'm not sure my imagination is sufficient to say they are as "real as the here an now." If I'm slapped in a nightmare and wake up, my cheek isn't red and doesn't hurt. If I'm slapped in real life and fall asleep my cheek might still be red and ache a bit. Of course Mr. Lennon was probably only suggesting we be a bit less skeptical of even the strangest things. With that I agree.

AJ

 

[Darielle]

Food for thought. I would say I believe in everything good, whether proven or not, because I am an optimist. But I don't believe in everything bad unless it's "fairly" (whatever that means) certain. I do believe, however, that human nature is such that it always embellishes the truth, sometimes outrageously, and sometimes without even realizing it. So it's impossible to separate truth from fiction. Even history is not history ... it's a combination of truth and fiction that has solidified over the years into history. But then, who really can say that what one imagines is not really occurring somewhere? Maybe imagination is just a form of clairvoyance ... of seeing something occurring somewhere in the universe, and then trying to relate it to your own reality. Just a thought.

 

[ajqtrz]

All few decades ago an intellectual of some kind wrote and piece in which he or she declared that "history is dead." They meant, by that, pretty much, I think, what you have just said. Separating truth from fiction is difficult and many have thrown in the towel and given up even trying. Yet, there is a limit to how much fiction you can put into history before it's just not believable. And that might just mean history, as history, can be revived.

I've thought a lot about it and find that the first step is to realize that it's hard work. One person I spoke to the other day declared that my point of view was obviously just an expression of my political stance. When I attempted to address the actual facts -- the verifiable things that happened -- she cut me off with "you can stack up a million facts proving you are right, and I can stack up a million showing you aren't." In other words, don't bother investigating because it's just too complex for anyone to sort it out and arrive at anything like a "neutral" answer. Her assumption is, of course, that we can't be honest, we can't really want "truth" that contradicts what we want to be true, and we can't be trusted to actually do the work to find out the truth. But I think that's the exaggeration at the core of the problem. We can do the work. We can be honest, and the truth might just be more accessible than we think.

For me the "truth" is a guess. Not a random one, but a reasoned one. I read those "millions" of pages, and I try to sort it out. As I do so I become more knowledgeable, and in doing so, have a better grasp of how the details might be arranged to make a coherent story. As I examine the story I either discover it doesn't cover the facts (verifiable things) and leaves more or less anomalies. The more anomalies, the less likely the story is true. The more the story accounts for the facts, the more likely the story should be believed.

Take, for instance, the theory of the flat earth. If you look you will find that it uses one particular anomaly to undermine the idea of a spherical earth. The anomaly is true, and, so far, can't be easily explained. Grabbing that "fact" the flat earth theory attempts to show how that anomaly is better explained by a flat earth model than a spherical one. And, as far as I can tell, it is. But here's the thing. The flat earth model introduces a lot more anomalies -- observations that can't be explained by the model -- than it solves. And that's usually the method of most conspiracy theories. They focus on a particular anomaly, build a theory to account for that anomaly and then claim the theory is a better one. The bullet path in Kennedy's assassination, the way building seven fell, the way the flag "waves" on the moon. All these real or imagined anomalies are used to build a counter theory. But, so far, all of them also create a lot more problems than they solve.

So what's the answer? Humbly go with the explanation that fits the best. None, in a complex situation, will fit perfectly. I was once associated with a group charged with investigating a satellite crash. One of the chief engineers was constantly remind us that "in every complex failure there will be details our best engineering models can't predict. That doesn't mean our models aren't sufficient to explain, in general, what happened, it just means they are incomplete as models." He would then wink and say, "that why we keep improving them."

So you look carefully, diligently, and come to a conclusion. To the degree you've looked, dug deep and found a good explanation you've done your homework. But there's always more to do, more evidence to examine, and more "truth" to be discovered.

So, yes, it's difficult to separate fact from fiction sometimes, but it can be done -- even if we find that "upon further investigation" we were once wrong.

AJ