DISCERNING THE TRUTH

Many of us today tend to be intimidated by any kind of knowledge that makes scientific claims like Steadman. Synovate etc. Who dares argue with science? Who dares argue with an expert? Very few and those who do are easily dismissed as backward or ignorant.

And so inside of our lives, objectified expertise generally trumps moral insight or worse still, is simplistically identified with it. Truth is truth, science has truth, and science trumps our moral concerns (which can be made to appear parochial and fear-based in the face of scientific claims). This is the idea is prevalent that we should listen to the scientific experts when it comes to discerning the truth.

But is it really that simple? And who really are the experts? What makes one an expert? A post graduate degree? Being a mother who’s raising her family well? Being a respected teacher? Living a good life? Being steady and faithful? There are various kinds of experts.

Moreover there are also issues of personal integrity and how this relates to “expertise” what is to be said for the truth of someone who produces scientific insight but who leads an unhealthy life? Does man or woman’s personal life affect his or her research and professional expertise?

Many great thinkers, philosophers, theologians and even scientists, would say that it does. Truth can never be divorced from moral insight since truth and morality are really one at their base. Hence personal integrity or lack of it in any researcher or scholar in some way does colour his or her expertise, however imperceptible this might be on the surface. How?

Aristotle, for example, had a concept he called phronesis which taught that it is impossible to separate the teaching of truth from the practice of virtue. For Aristotle genuine knowledge, the type that ultimately makes you a better human being, could not issue forth from someone who intellectual theory and personal moral life were radically out of sync.

Albert Einstein, in effect said that it is impossible to do research that doesn’t include a lot of me-search, who we are and what perspective we have on reality will always help determine how we see the world and articulate any theory about it. And who we are and our perspective on reality is always partly shaped and deeply coloured by our own moral lives. Our moral lives deeply influence our research because they help shape our eye sight.

The medieval mystics Hugo of St. Victor, had an axiom for this. Love is the eye! For him, our eyesight is largely shaped by either the love or bitterness that is inside of us at any moment. When I look at the world with love, I see it one way; when I look at the world with bitterness, I see it another way. That is also time for every researcher. Granted mathematics is beyond emotion, but the realities to which we apply to it.

And so what is the lesson?

Our task is not to become defensive about the findings of the various professional academies, to stop studying.

First and foremost, honour the findings of genuine science and research, even if you aren’t always enthralled about their source. All truth has one author, God. God is the source of the Bible and God is also the source of science and its findings. Accept truth in all its guises, but be less intimidated by the teachings of those experts who claim scientific objectivity without acknowledging their own limits, hidden judgments, biases, particularly when their truth touches questions of health, meaning, morality and happiness.

A good research admits elements of me-search, is humble about the truth. When you are looking for stars by which to guide your life scan the heavens widely. Don’t lock-in on one narrow corner. There are many stars, each with its own particular expertise in giving off light.