Is knowledge as we know it fading?

Never before has critical thinking been more necessary.

Fact is the basis for truth. Truth is the foundation for clear thinking and sound decision making. Together, they make up the ground floor of successful communication.

If conversants aren’t relying on the same sources, or at least the same categories, to gather facts, it’s hard to communicate on the same plane. Instead of understanding one another (which is not to say agreeing), we feel polarized and perplexed by others.

Sound familiar?

Understanding why society has come to this starts with epistemology — examining knowledge itself. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It’s how we gather and analyze it; it’s the investigation into what distinguishes a verifiable fact-justified belief from opinion (often treated as fact by the opinion holder).

Epistemology is about critical thinking, and critical thinking begins with the data informing it, with source selection and analysis.

That is what changed.

Once upon a time, most people relied on the same basic sources for facts: Most read the same local and national newspapers and listened to the same dispassionate TV news, generally reported using agreed-upon professional standards and free from bias.

Beyond a base level of bias that is simply being human, we could all rely on that a couple of decades ago. We didn’t have to go hunting for objective information.

We also relied on trained experts. Those more educated and experienced in a particular field helped us analyze and resolve problems, and we listened, at least more often than we do now. The average person had much the same foundational information as others, enabling us to communicate on the same level, even when we disagreed.

Same sources. Less “my truth” and “your truth.” More truth-in-fact. A lot more moderate, middle way views, or at least willingness to compromise and work together.

With today’s hundreds of channels and thousands (millions?) of alleged “news” sources feeding us (perceived or real) “facts,” it’s as if you speak Greek and I speak Swahili and sources are something else entirely. Nothing is mainstream because there are too many streams.

Misinterpretation of both source and one another is the rule rather than the exception. “Truth” has become synonymous with opinion and unsupported or missing data. Worse, leaders, voters and families are making decisions and damaging relationships based on incorrect or incomplete information, and feeding our angst and anxieties, our mistrust and separation.

No wonder common ground is hard to find underneath it all. Without the same reference points, communication is a moving target.

As philosopher and best-selling author Daniel Dennett said in a New York Times Magazine interview, the presence of agreed-upon sources of common knowledge can no longer be taken for granted. To quote Microsoft’s chief scientist Eric Horvitz, we’re living in a “post-epistemic world” — a world without commonly understood, fact-based knowledge. As Dennett says, that’s extremely frightening.

A post-epistemic world is underway.

We do have the power to get back on the road to an evidentiary knowledge-based world, by creating an active intention toward critical thinking. Like choosing clothes each morning, critical thinking involves conscious selection of data, considering how we put it all together to form a final picture.

That starts with consciously discerning the difference between subjective and objective information, something the average human does less often or less well than most realize. No matter how educated or self-aware, every human has preconceived notions and bias. Discerning between the objective and subjective sounds simple, but it’s easy to gloss over.

An objective claim is a statement about a fact; it can be proved or disproved by widely recognized methods and criteria (not simply anecdotal). A subjective claim isn’t a provable fact; it’s an expression of belief, opinion or perspective.

Objective examples: The number of words on this page. Measurable trends in temperature. Number of votes cast. All verifiable, with answers not subject to interpretation or judgment.

Subjective: “Knowledge as we know it is fading.” “Government-run agencies are (inefficient, unbiased, necessary).” Neither statement is verifiable fact, only anecdotal or arguable. Too much in modern partisan politics is subjective, inaccurately presented and received as fact.

A 2018 Pew Research study found that even among Americans who were more politically aware, only 36% could distinguish fact from opinion in the news (among the less politically aware/news-informed, only 17% could).

Carefully distinguishing between objective and subjective information requires conscious mental checks. Opening the mind to statements, explanations and evidentiary facts which may or may not support preconceived ideas or beliefs. It has to be OK to have been wrong. That’s growth. That’s learning.

Look for evidence and logical (but not circular, proving itself with itself) reasoning. Hints that information is subjective include adjectives connoting judgment, approval or disapproval; political labels; and words eliciting an emotional response.

Who is the source? Is the website, station, writer or organization allied with one viewpoint or a particularly expressed goal, exclusive of other viewpoints? Does the source ridicule others? Who is funding the source? What did they rely on as their sources; can you verify it with objective data? As tempting as it may be to accept as truth what someone with similar beliefs reports, if you know your source’s beliefs it’s less likely to be objective.

Evidence does not include anecdotes. Examples and stories can help convey meaning or illustrate the effects of a policy, act or event. Yet, alone they don’t constitute facts. To become well informed requires a level of skepticism that reaches inward, questioning premises and our own preconceptions until enough data is accumulated to support a defensible conclusion.

To change this maddening world of extremes, instead of arguing conclusions we might start by focusing on what’s informing them, starting in our own minds.

• • •

Sholeh Patrick, J.D., is a columnist with the Hagadone News Network. Email sholeh@cdapress.com.