A continuation of the previous post.
Now, if you’ve clicked on at least two of the links listed below, or are familiar with the authors, then you know that (gasp!) they all come from the same source. Am I not being one-sided on the issue? What about other perspectives? Aren’t I consciously dogmatizing myself? Aren’t I caving in to the too-human desire for reinforcement, affirmation, certainty (even if fabricated), righteousness (even if conjured) and a sense of belonging?
The issue centers (in part) on one’s orientation towards and application of the words ‘certainty’ and ‘judgement.’ I’m also reminded of it by a quick post from Jenna. The kind of tunnel-thinking that characterizes uncritical thinkers (i.e. non-thinkers), dogmatists, fundamentalists (both religious and secular), and every other faith-and-force loving epistemologist (the high priest for the irrationalists) - all this is associated with highly selective, pre-approved reading: cannons, in short.
But, I don’t think that one is synonymous with another. That is, I think one can justifiably read selectively, and not fall into the trap of dogmatism and non-thinking. Of course, how and why one does this matters tremendously, and the opportunities for screwing it up abound. It’s not a path for the probabilistically shy. (Of course, residing in the tail-ends of most "normal" distributions greatly increases one’s tolerance, fortitude, skill and courage for navigating the improbable.)
This of course makes sense on the surface - one can’t spend all one’s time reading indiscriminately. There’s simply too much out there. On top of that, most people would agree that some ridiculous percentage of the stuff available to read is junk, and patently not worth your time. The trouble comes when one realizes that what qualifies as junk often depends on your goals, aims, values, priorities, and even some non-essential facts such as your language, age, and career.
Still, so what - not everyone has to read the same stuff. But, as a matter of intellectual development, objectivity and moral duty - that is, as a matter of principle - should a single individual seek out a wide variety of potentially conflicting and contradictory texts on a single subject? Is one’s chance at objectivity necessarily increased by doing this? Are all conflicting texts equally worth your time? How do you know which ones are more worthwhile? Should your brain be an equal opportunity employer? Or even an affirmative action employer?
Well, we can reject the above if the context is all contexts. Obviously a NASA scientist’s time is not well spent reading New Age metaphysics or dithering about crop-circles. People who actually study evolution and advance our knowledge about living organisms should not be required to read Ann Coulter’s new book. Arguing otherwise in these cases indicates a rejection of any commitment to knowledge-advancement, productive work, or really any self-sustaining action on the part of an individual or of a society. We would all be slaves to the blatherings of the latest hacks and quacks, and progress on any front would come to a screeching halt like a train plowing into the side of a mountain (of B.S.), which is what happens when any hope of certainty or actionable knowledge is thrown out the door, hijacked by an eternal What-If. We are then left with the maxims of 20th century philosophy: the only thing you can be certain of is that you can’t be certain of anything; know that you will always be ignorant; trust anyone’s judgement but your own.
You’ll probably agree that the above is absurd. That’s not what people actually mean when they advocate that we "read around" on a subject before making a decision. Let’s restrict the context. NASA engineers don’t need to read L. Ron Hubbard and biologists can go back to their laboratories without worrying about Ann Coulter. The knowledge in these fields is well-established, demonstrably productive, verifiable on multiple counts, and shows no sign of slowing down. The competing paradigms are, by contrast, still tying their shoes together at the start-line while crying that the race was rigged.
Multiple perspectives are valuable in situations where there is insufficient knowledge to decide one way or the other. This goes for an individual learning about an established subject as well as an individual innovator or a group of innovators creating new knowledge. This is also part-and-parcel of the peer-review process in science; an author must demonstrate familiarity with the objective context of his work, as well as the perceived and/or historical context of his work, even if he proceeds to demolish the conclusions of all workers prior to himself. This way he shows not only that he is right, but how and why, and why others are wrong. This wouldn’t be necessary if his only goal was to convince himself; but it is necessary if one aims to convince others.
Still, the maxim to read around is not useful in its purest, most literal interpretation, which doesn’t suggest any particular criteria by which to select your reading. We have standards for evaluating knowledge, including - and especially - while we’re in the midst of creating new knowledge. Otherwise it would be an anything-goes game, a claim-jumper’s fantasy-come-true.
What are these standards? Without tangenting into an epistemological treatise, let me merely list a couple of the ways of knowing (i.e. epistemologies) that exist. We have the paradigm of science, which assumes an external reality with a particular identity, uses data and experience of this reality for information (i.e. uses induction and experimentation), relies on the efficacy of logic, and believes in the abilities of humans to reach a better and better understanding of reality. (The philosophy of Objectivism falls in this category - science not being a philosophy per se, but definitely relying on philosophic premises.)
There is mysticism (which comes in dozens, if not hundreds, of varieties) which says that objective knowledge is not possible to the reasoning mind, that "true" knowledge must somehow be revealed to humans, and our best course of action is to distrust the powers of our mind and trust in the authority of this other source of knowledge (which is tapped, channeled, and dispensed by other humans). How we know that knowledge by revelation is better than, say, scientific knowledge is either not stated, not allowed to be questioned, or explained using what I call an Argument from Low Self-Esteem, i.e. an argument which assumes the impotence, depravity, or worthlessness of being human. (Here we find not only religions, but such secular beliefs as multiculturalism, egalitarianism, all forms of collectivism and the philosophies of Plato and Kant, as best as I can tell).
One more way of knowing (and then I’ll stop) we might call the Way of the Brute. This epistemology isn’t really concerned with knowledge per se. It simply asks: What works? then says, Do what works. It doesn’t ask why one thing works and another doesn’t, it doesn’t seek to build up or increase knowledge, preserve knowledge, or even to organize it. Nor is it concerned with what-if’s, moral conundrums, or things which aren’t perceptible, including the supernatural. It’s the strategy of the short-term, where whatever is current or pressing is always the highest priority. If epistemology is the science of knowing, then this is an anti-epistemology epistemology. It is the way of the brute. (Incidentally, by this characterization, the popular American philosophy of Pragmatism best falls in this category, although that’s a whole ‘nother post.)
Before asking which reading lists are implied by each epistemology, let’s first ask if any reading list is implied by the different epistemologies. The Way of the Brute doesn’t imply any kind of systematic, self-consciously cognitive, conceptual approach to existence, so reading is out, especially the sort of reading that implores one to consider multiple perspectives, much less all perspectives.
Most mystics are all for reading - from The Approved Reading List. This is the classic dogmatism against which the "read around" advocates are responding. If only the crazy fundamentalists would read another book, they’d see that there’s more than one way to think about the world, and we’d rid the world of abusive, dangerous zealots and haters-of-man. Well, I suppose.
But here we don’t mean just any book. It’s not an improvement if the founder of E.L.F. picks up the Qur’an and joins the jihad. We mean better books, and we’d better define ‘better’ mighty fast before some crazy beats us to the punch. ‘Better’ means closer to reality, closer to the facts, facts untainted by an ideological agenda. We then trust that ‘the facts speak for themselves’ and that every human, regardless of background or degree of ideological indoctrination, retains the capacity to deduce the objectively correct answer from the pristine facts - that humans are, somehow, fact-calculators, and given enough facts, everyone will come up with the right answer. (I don’t know about you, but I have repeatedly and routinely screwed up a mere four-function calculator. I find that, even with over eight years of science ‘indoctrination’, ‘the facts’ can be enormously difficult to make sense of.)
Now let’s get to the epistemology of science. Inasmuch as science is inductive, it requires a large base of data from which to work, and if "reading around" means collecting data in some sense, then yes, science advocates reading around. However, all scientists know that not all data are created equally, and not all opinions are as correct, valid, or worthwhile as others. Thus a scientist will compose a selective reading list based on prior experience, knowledge of the field, calculated guesses (i.e. hypotheses, even about his reading material), and available time. He is pragmatic in the sense that he won’t spend 60 years reading all possible material on a subject before doing anything concrete. In short, he thinks critically, makes judgements, takes action, keeps open eyes and an active, critical, judging brain, and accepts responsibility for the results of his actions, both good and bad.
But doesn’t this contradict what it means to "read around"? Aren’t rigid standards, a priori certainty, judgement, and rejection the very mental functions associated with dogmatism, the sorts of functions we’re trying to avoid? Or is the maxim of "reading around" carrying semantic baggage that we don’t mean to intend? I think that’s the case. At least I would hope so.
Just because the dogmatists are certain and judgemental does not make certainty and judgement suspect. Rather, it’s why they hold those certain and judgemental views that makes them wrong, not that they are certain or judgemental. Making the connection between the what and the why explicit will show whether those particular judgements are worth holding or not. There’s a lot to be said with what one does with one’s convictions, also, and I would posit that there’s a strong link between the reason for a conviction and the actions it engenders. Furthermore, it’s a sad state of affairs when words such as ‘judgement’ and ‘righteousness’ are connotatively associated with dogmatic un-thinking. We need to wrest these important words back and give their power to those who would wisely, justly, and objectively use them.
Therefore, provided that one has a sufficiently accurate grasp of the range of possible perspectives on a topic and - much more importantly - solid, logical, explainable, demonstrable reasons for holding the certain views that he does, I think he is justified in confining his reading to a rather narrow range of perspectives in order to maximize the use of his time and energy. When you’re sure of your position for many excellent reasons, it’s an utter waste of your time (at the very least) to read hogwash just for the sake of "reading around."
Some views are better than others, and for very good reasons that are worth exploring and exposing. The ill-defined, contextless, unprincipled principle of "reading around" ignores the fact that this, too, is a view. It’s only a rational view when we attach standards to it, and admit that we have standards of knowledge also, at which point its egalitarian connotation becomes contradictory. Not all views are created equal, and after a certain minimal amount of "reading around" in order to establish standards of knowledge, "reading around" is only rational when we don’t read around equally. At this point I’d recommend a new, more accurate name for this principle, but it doesn’t interest me enough to conjure up one on my own.
For these exceedingly long-winded reasons, I do not feel bad for largely selecting my readings in politics and political philosophy from a single type of source. Only if I become suspect of the quality of that source - of the principles on which it is founded, or the methods by which those principles are executed - will I systematically look elsewhere. I simply haven’t the time to read the views of all comers, particularly in the ugly, irrational arena of politics.
li>
