Recently on a crew bus I heard a man complaining about his wife and the fact that she didn’t understand basic science. Apparently they were having a disagreement about evolution, or global warming, or maybe math itself.
Then another person replied, “Would you
rather be right, or would you rather be happy?”
And I thought to myself, "This statement
does not apply."
When talking about restaurant
choice, entertainment selections, color combinations, wardrobe, or the relative
merits of different popular songs, this is a great philosophy. In the grand scheme of things, these
decisions are relatively trivial and unimportant, so it is good to be flexible
and accommodating; let your companions feel comfortable and make the choice.
But when talking about math or
science, this attitude just does not apply.
“Rightness” or “Correctness” is not a personal characteristic of one of
the debaters, but an inherent property of the data. To establish correctness, you can
independently verify results and double check the math. This establishes a proof, given the assumptions
of the observations. If the assumptions
are wrong, or too general, then the proof can be called into question. But, if the assumptions are agreed to, then
the proof stands as correct, or right.
It will be considered a fact. (note: "agreement" in THIS case is not "agreement between the disputing parties" but is instead "the general consensus of the entire professional society.")
If at some time in the future, new information
leads to the reevaluation of the assumptions, then a new calculation for truth
may be derived. Possibly the previous results will remain valid.
In any event, TRUTH IS NOT JUST AN
OPINION. It is a logically verifiable
fact independent of subjective observation.
This TRUTH cannot be “agreed to”, “disputed”, or “ignored” It just IS.
Gravity is a good example. Oxygen is another. We cannot choose to disagree with Gravity,
or have misgivings about Oxygen. That is
nonsensical. In a similar way, we cannot
cherry pick historical or scientific truths without sound logical reasons;
based on observable and verifiable phenomena.
For some discussions, the phrase
“Would you rather be right, or be happy” is irrelevant and dangerous. It can lead to personal disaster.
For other discussions, it is as
appropriately benign as the subject being discussed itself. At those times, I heartily suggest being
tolerant and even passive. Let the
other person dominate the conversation, talk at length, and have their own
way. But in the quest of TRUTH, you must
unfortunately be uncompromising, vigilant, and absolutely honest.
copyright(c)2015
William Schaeffer
This idea highlights a paradox of language noted in an earlier essay.
ReplyDeleteDo you want to use language to find similarities to the other person and establish emotional bonds and connections, OR do you want to mutually explore the world of thought and bravely follow logic wherever it leads, regardless of the consequences? You cannot do both, you must choose.