Photo by Kathy McEldowney

Everything you think you know is wrong…I know it sounds harsh – condescending even, well it’s not. At least it’s not meant to be. You see, I have no problem admitting that everything that I think I know is wrong too. It’s not a question of right and wrong, it’s not a question of “truth” – whatever that is. What we are talking about here is a mindset. I want you, and me, to say “now wait just a minute here…” whenever we find ourselves or anyone else blindly accepting anything as “true”.

If you have followed my line of reasoning in my posts here and agree on at least a few of my conclusions, then this should have consequences for how you think and act.

Let’s ruin it all and sum it up in a few catchy rules of thumb:

1. It’s extremely difficult to prove causality, i.e cause – effect relationships. When someone says with too high a level of confidence that A causes B – be careful, since it is so difficult to prove these relationships, chances are they are wrong. And what’s worse: they probably know it and try to force feed you their nonsense anyway. When things seem to have a causality, more often than not, what people are really talking about is correlation. Correlation can suggest causality, but only suggest. So, mistrust people who claim to know the truth. The evidence is in the language.

Look for words such as: “it seem as if”, “this suggests” etc. If they are included you should pay attention. If not, go play xbox.

Rule of thumb: When anyone says that something is true – it’s probably not.

2. We live in a system. We have ideas on how stuff works in this system, these ideas are theories, and they can be valid, but never true. Science does not deal with truth. These theories are often based on assumptions. Assumptions are stuff taken for granted without proof. There are always competing theories trying to explain the same thing.

Rule of thumb. Find the underlying assumptions. Mistrust people who try to hide their underlying assumptions.

3. Information is always processed. The further you are from the source, the more likely it is that something is distorted. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes by mistake. Examine all information and look for the source. Always ask yourself if the channel you are tuned in to has anything to gain by relaying the information.

Rule of thumb. Look for the source. Find the agenda.

4. Three very common concepts run through our system and we should be careful when they appear. There is a difference between “nature” and “civilization”. “Normal” is a statistical term dependent on the sample base. The concept of “Common Sense” means nothing, and in a worst case scenario it’s a useless simplification towards stupidity.

Rule of thumb: If a line of reasoning involves the concepts natural, normal or common sense, further debate is probably futile.

And so, the finish: What I’m promoting here is healthy skepticism. I’m not promoting cynicism. Cynicism is a terrible trait in a person, and even though I admit that I succumb to it a lot more than I should, I try very hard not to. Cynicism is unattractive. The whole purpose of healthy skepticism is to cut through all the soul sucking nonsense out there and find a path forward. We are the good guys. Our hearts are soft, but that does not mean that our brains should be. Quite the contrary, the more noble our purpose, the more our cause deserves that we step it up and play the game like a pro. Only then can we find that path forward. The one where hope and change is possible.

And cue violins, and…wait for it, wait for it: OK, on my mark, release the doves. On three. Ready…one, two…and release the doves. Zoom in on crying child. And lift the camera towards the starry sky. And….cut!
It’s a wrap.
Thank you everyone. Great work.
Anyone for drinks?
Anyone…?
Hello?

There is nothing common about sense, and sense is not all that common.
In fact, one could argue that “common sense” is to reasoning, what myth is to fact. Let me elaborate.

People tend to believe the strangest things to be facts, even if the facts are simply wrong. These misconceptions resemble urban myths, in the sense that they are often widely spread and “everyone” seems to believe in them. We call these misconceptions factoids, something which becomes accepted as fact, although it may not be true. Such as the belief that if you for some reason find yourself on the Moon orbiting the Earth, you can see the Great Wall of China. Well, you can’t.

The term “Common Sense” is widely in use though, not seldom by people who should know better. Often it’s more a question of rhetoric than an actual reference to something valuable. I’ve always felt that term has something of a “elite” versus “the people” perspective, as “common sense” is based upon knowledge that is supposedly held by people “in common”. Supposedly something we can all just agree upon without much thought, research or analysis. This would imply that “common sense” is somewhat folksy, where as actual sense (which would require thought, research and analysis) is something that brainy people do just to complicate things in order to indulge in blatant self flattery.

“Common Sense” can also be used to describe a reasoning that is “no nonsense”. No nonsense usually mean simplistic, generalized, easy, black and white. And wrong. Why? Because in a highly complex system such as the one we find ourselves in (i.e the world), nothing is that simple. This is the very essence of the problem with “Common Sense”. It is an outspoken adversary to deeper understanding. It simplifies towards stupidity, and with its promise to make complicated things easy, it grasps the minds of people. What we love, we hang on to. And so “Common Sense” dies very hard.

To conclude: The term “Common Sense” in itself is so meaningless that anyone who tries to argue a point with reference to “Common Sense” should receive an ear tug and be sent to bed without dessert. We should listen to Einstein who is reported to have said: “Common Sense is nothing but a collection of misconceptions acquired by age eighteen”. Or in the words of Bertrand Russell: “Common Sense embodies the metaphysics of savages.” Oh, and by the way: never trust people who quote great thinkers when they argue a point. It proves that they cannot rely on their own argumentation without the support of other thinkers. Makes ‘em look daft. Oops!

And this is why everything you think you know is wrong.

Mr. Badger, a part of nature.

It is not unusual to hear people make claims such as “it is not natural” or “it is not normal”. Often, they say this with reference to what we may call “alternative lifestyle” behaviors such as say, homosexuality or perhaps vegetarianism. Usually they take issue with these lifestyles. And so, with their sense of morality as motivator, they deem these practices as “not natural” and “not normal”. Usually they interchange these two concepts, mistakenly believing that they are the same thing. They are not.

Defenders of alternative lifestyles walk right into the trap and engage in debate based on the same strange distinctions; those of norm and nature. Let’s start with nature.

One admittedly simplistic way to start researching this problem is by dividing everything that we know into two categories.

Category One. In this box we put everything that would exist regardless of whether humans roamed our earth or not. Trees, for instance. And badgers. And then there’s air, rainbows, poo and minerals. This is nature.

Category Two. Here we put the things that only exist on the planet because humans have made them. Such as nations, politics, the stock market, law, golf, mime theater, and beer. These things made by men can be called civilization. Or culture.

Some things seem to fall in between. Such as religion. Man made or not? A matter of faith, and it is not for me to tell you where to position yourself. But in the interest of full disclosure, I will have to admit that I would put religion in category two. Mainly because I prefer to separate any notion of God from religion. This is a discussion for another day though.

The tricky part is that we can argue that it is in the nature of man to build civilizations (because our brains allow for this). With this argument, you can claim that everything that goes on in our civilization is also “natural”, natural as in “a part of nature”. A slippery slope, but well worth considering.

Anyways, here we are. Now let’s examine the motivator for the attack on alternative lifestyles: morality. Where would you put that little gem? Category One or Two? Man made or not? You are free to disagree with me (as I know a lot of religious people will) but I would claim that morality is man made. The idea of universal absolutes when it comes to right and wrong does not sit well with me. So, armed with (man made) moral indignation they lash out and say:

“You Sir, are not natural”. Here I suggest you respond like Katherine Hepburn did to Humphrey Bogart in the old movie African Queen.

“Nature, my good man, is what we are put in this world to rise above.”

Such a wonderful response! But is the essence of what Hepburn said true or not? You tell me…
The point I am struggling to get across is this: I have tried to demonstrate earlier that man is rather flawed. So, it would not be at all far fetched to say that civilization and culture, again: made by men, are inherently flawed as well for a very simple reason. They’re man made.

All things man made can be subject to change. That which is made by men can be changed by men. Law, politics, economics and morality. None of these man made entities should ever be allowed to manifest themselves as universal laws. Nothing in civilization and culture is carved in stone. We make progress. We change and improve. But the real implication of keeping this in mind is the realization that it doesn’t have to be this way. Change is possible.

Ok, so what is normal then?

Wikipedia, as always, can be of help here: We learn that “In behavior, normal refers to a lack of significant deviation from the average”. Therefore “not normal” would of course be a significant deviation from the average. These are statistical terms. And here’s the kicker: What the average will turn out to be depends on the sample base. For this reason normality can never be a constant. What is normal will depend on time, place and sample group. Now, normality is not a completely useless term, but almost. Especially if you’re convinced that “normal” equals “good”. During war time, killing people is normal. For a cannibal tribe, cannibalism is normal. For dogs, licking their own arse is normal. Normal doesn’t mean anything by itself.

So, what I am trying to say is that the life you lead, you lead inside a flawed man made system. A huge fu**ing game, for which you have not written the rules, but by which, seemingly, you must abide. This game involves players scurrying around pointing fingers, telling you that you are not “normal”, which really means nothing at all.

We are born into life, and we are born into civilization and culture. They are not the same. I’ve met my fair share of genuinely unhappy people, and it has often seemed to me that their failure to grasp this difference between life and civilization is the root cause of their unhappiness. I believe learning the difference means letting go of illusions (to borrow a phrase from buddhist teachings) and I believe that letting go of illusions will lead to a richer and happier life.

Or in other more mundane words: the whole deal is sort of crap so why ever would you let it get to you?

Every piece of information that you are likely to get your hands on is processed information. Reading the news? Processed. Watching the news online or on TV? Processed. Reading a book? Someone retelling a story? Processed.

This means that if you observe something – on a good day the event that took place can be called raw unprocessed data. We do not take into account here that events can be staged. You observe the event and you interpret it. This is the first round of interpretation, and as you retell it to others several rounds of the same will ensue.

It’s much like the game chinese whispers, an excellent children’s game that could teach us that every person relaying information is a possible source of error and a possible additional step away from an accurate retelling of any event. This is called a cumulative error. Here, we could move deeper into the problem areas of language and communication, but we will leave that for another day. So where were we? Ah yes, this, quite possibly flawed information, ends up in a factory called the media – in this example, let us use a traditional tabloid newspaper.

Here a whole new process takes place. Let us assume that the information has traveled all this way through people who have no interest in tweaking the information. They have no agenda, no reason to change anything for their own gain. This is a huge assumption, but let’s suspend our disbelief and accept this as true for the sake of argument.

This tabloid newspaper is running a business and the sole purpose of any business is to maximize profits for the shareholders. So now the already flawed information will receive a spin that makes people buy newspapers. Because now, the information has become something that can be bought and sold. The rules of the market place now apply and the rules of the media are governed by these rules. The media will spin and alter information as much as their conscience and the law allows for so as to ensure profit.

Media will do this by toying with different triggers that they know from experience make people buy newspapers. Fear, of course, being one of them. In their defense, not all papers are tabloids, but the essence of what I’m saying holds true for other media outlets as well.

Now, sometimes media will contact an expert on a subject for an analysis of the incoming information. This expert can put things into context, and will have theories and opinions. Contact another expert, and he or she will draw the opposite conclusion based on the same information. We now find ourselves in the next step of the process away from raw data. Based on flawed information, possibly spun by media, experts form an opinion. Based on this opinion, or perhaps based on the media message, people around us form opinions. As I believe I have demonstrated, the foundations for these opinions rest on shaky ground to say the least.

The process of politics is roughly the same, where the media has an agenda based on maximizing profits for shareholders, they may at the very same time have a political agenda. The politics themselves are tweaking information to suit their needs. Even the works produced by scientists can be biased towards a political or religious belief system. To summarize I will leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Democritos of Abdera who said:

Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.

And this is why everything you think you know is wrong.

Many of the things we hold to be true, and “think” we know are based on either assumptions or at best theories of some sort (which most of the time also rest on the foundation of some assumptions). Theories have the benefit of having to suffer the scrutiny of other people forming theories, and when a better take on things appear old theories are scratched, revised and replaced with new ones. There is an inherent agreement that theories hold true only as long as they are not refuted or a better version comes along. But the agreement also states that theories WILL be refuted. We want them to be refuted. That’s the name of the game. We call it progress.

In some sense we believe in theories the same way we believe in religion, difference being of course that it has turned out to be very difficult to prove the existence of Gods. There’s no science involved in the religion game, although many have tried to combine the two. The results have been unimpressive, if you ask me.

Consider some stuff that you “know” to be true. The Big Bang theory for instance. You can’t really explain it, can you? I know I can’t. But you believe in it, because you were told that this is how the universe was created. Not surprisingly so, since the message you got in school was probably not:

“One widely accepted theory on how the universe began is the theory called Big Bang, a theory that states…”

It was probably more like: “Ok, kids, The universe started with a Big Bang. So there you have it. Now go make crap models of our solar system for no apparent reason whatsoever.”

A quick cut-and-paste from wikipedia reveals this, with regards to the Big Bang theory:

“The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws, and the Cosmological Principle. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic.”

Did you get that? I know I didn’t. But I found the word “assumptions” in there. So we don’t really know, do we? And more importantly, when you say that the universe began with a Big Bang, and you can’t really explain the theory even on the most basic level, you are really just believing in a message from priests, preaching in a church called science.

This is most likely because you have faith in science, and the process of science, therefore you do not feel any need to understand how they come up with their theories. You accept them. And that’s fine. As long as you remember that they are theories.

This is important because every generation is arrogant enough to believe that they are the ones who finally got it right. In a larger perspective this means that when people believed that the world rested on a giant tortoise, this was accepted as the best available theory, and they laughed heartily at their grandparents who believed with the same certainty that the world rested on the back of a giant squid called Henry.

The above reasoning holds true with regards to just about everything.

And this is why everything you think you know is wrong.

Basic understanding of life, universe and the whole mess, involves understanding the difference between things that correlate and things that can demonstrate causality. This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. In arguments, I tend to focus on the logic presented to me, more than the actual message. This can cause me to be somewhat of a bore in discussions, and I have a tendency to go over the top sometimes, but I think I have good reason. For it is precisely these fallacies of the mind that create a window of opportunity for hate mongers and others who have a need to shove their world view down our throats.

First: Say for instance that someone show that number of rapes in our society is up, and so is the number of immigrants we accept across our borders (this is a fictional case, I have no idea what the numbers really say on this, I choose this rather controversial case to prove a point).

Now, these statistics could possibly correlate (both numbers might have risen, perhaps even proportionally, and maybe during the same time period) but even if this were so, there is a huge leap to prove causality, i.e. demonstrating that rape statistics are up BECAUSE OF rising immigration numbers, a case which would allow for us to say that immigration somehow causes more rapes to be carried out.

Consider the possibility that during this same time period the price of peanuts has gone up, again proportionally to the number of rapes. This would mean that someone can say with the same confidence that we must keep prices low on peanuts to protect society from rapists. No one in their right mind would say this. That would be nuts.

Second: What’s being measured?

In this particular example, we can be quite sure that it is really the number of REPORTED RAPES that has gone up, since there is really no other way to measure this but to look at how many rapes are reported to the police. There is no way of telling if it is the inclination to report these crimes that has risen, or if the number of actual rapes has increased.

What we have here is a problem of understanding what’s been measured, what the numbers really show. This is self evident to many, but sadly this reasoning is lost on so many people that more often than not, further debate is futile.

To conclude: Demonstrating cause-and-effect relationships is very difficult since there’s an infinite number of possible (but not necessarily likely) explanations for any given phenomenon. And statistics are tricky.

And this is why everything you think you know is wrong.