Believers and Knowers

Faith is the belief in something without evidence.  Knowledge is the belief in something based on evidence.  It appears to me our great national divide falls along the lines of faith vs. knowledge.  For example, there are those who believe the earth is flat.  They have no evidence other than saying if you look at the horizon the earth appears to be flat.  Most folks know the earth is basically spherical.  There are volumes and volumes of evidence to support this knowledge.  So what happens when a flat-earther engages in conversation with someone who has evidence to the contrary?  It has been my experience that once the evidence is presented there is little for the flat-earther to do other than call the “knower” names, imply they do not support certain values, that they are rude, insensitive and not respectful.  It is an ongoing dilemma.  What should a person say who has knowledge and knows better?  Acquiescence implies there is validity in the believers’ belief.  And yet, to push the case just makes it worse. 

When confronted with facts believers can only attack and they do so without facts.  They do so with more beliefs.  Knowers are more than willing to change their perspective if there are facts to support an alternative view.  If one bases one’s position on the issues based on knowledge then of course as knowledge changes position changes.  That is not true of believers.  Believers believe they hold the truth because they believe it and for no other reason.  Just because one believes something to be true does not make it true.  Just because one wants something to be true does not make it true.  And just because one heard someone else say it is true does not make it true.

All this is made worse by spokespeople for believers who promote non-knowledge based positions that believers are more than willing to accept even though there is no evidence, or even though the evidence is all to the contrary.  There are multiple examples of this.  Some believe Obama committed treason and should be tried.  There is no evidence to support this position.  The evidence is all to the contrary.  But if a believer trusts a spokesperson who promotes conspiracy theories without fact then the believer will not be swayed.  The same is true of what believers believe about Clinton and emails, Benghazi, Uranium, etc.  All the evidence is to the contrary but believers do not want to hear that.  The same is true of the pandemic.  There is no evidence it was a Democratic hoax or developed in Chinese laboratories as a weapon.  But because certain spokespeople for the believers claim that it is true, believers go on believing it despite the facts.

I thought we reached the zenith of this bizarre conflict when a spokesperson for the believers announced that there was such a thing as “alternative” facts.  Yes, there can be conflicting evidence on a topic that has yet to be resolved via further investigation, but there is no such thing, by definition, of alternative facts.  This statement was clearly an effort to validate non-supported beliefs when in conflict with the facts.

When medical research showed that an aspirin a day could significantly help people with clogged arteries, those at risk of heart attacks and strokes, then doctors immediately began telling their patients to begin taking an aspirin every day.  No conflict.  No protests.  The facts were the facts.  When medical research showed that smoking was a significant health risk and should cease, there was a huge backlash led by the tobacco companies.  Eventually, the facts won out and everyone seems to know that smoking is bad for one’s health.  But there were economic consequences for recognizing that fact and there were addiction consequences for recognizing the facts so the facts were fought.

Science is not a liberal conspiracy.  Knowledge is a good thing, not a bad thing.  Why does anyone need to say this to a nation that has prospered tremendously due to our ability to innovate, explore, and develop via science?  Surely, everyone supports the collection of data to confirm or reject certain positions.  Not so.  It is never been so.  Just ask Copernicus when he showed that the earth was not the center of our universe or our solar system and was persecuted by the church for saying such blasphemous things.

Here is a list of those things that I currently perceive are a source of conflict between the believers and the knowers:

Knowers:  Trump is a consummate liar.  Believers:  Trump does not lie.

Knowers:  A free press must be able to investigate the wrongdoing of those in power positions.  Believers:  A free press is the enemy of the people and the main reason Trump is attacked.

Knowers:  Trump has been charged with committing multiple crimes for which he has yet to be held accountable.  Believers:  Trump has done no wrong and it is the media and the Democrats who are after him.

Knowers:  The COVID-19 pandemic is a serious risk to our way of life and the health and well-being of our nation and the world.  If we do not shut down, wear masks, maintain social distancing, etc., the number of deaths will continue to escalate.  Believers:  The entire virus thing is a hoax or at least nothing significant and has been overplayed so that the economy looks bad in November for political reasons and they will not wear a mask.

Knowers:  Trump will be seen as the worst and most corrupt President in our history using any variable of analysis.  Believers:  God chose Trump, he can do no wrong.

The above is just a sampling.  The list goes on and on regarding guns, abortion, police profiling, race relations, gender equity, gender preference, health care, etc., etc.  There are vast bodies of research out there on each of these topics, almost all of which is in conflict with what many believers believe to be true, or want to believe to be true.

We have no chance of advancing as a nation if we act on belief when it is in conflict with knowledge.  There has not been one single scientifically validated set of facts that has ever been replaced by a belief system.  The opposite, however, happens almost daily. 

I seek to be a knower.  When I hear something new and it does not seem to ring true I investigate.  I use fact-checkers, I use search engines to find articles on the topic, and I seek to find who supports the new something.  I am able to discard an entire array of conspiracy theories and erroneous belief systems doing this.  I do the work.  I do the reading.  On the other hand, if I find there is evidence to the contrary, evidence that supports the new thing, I will suspend my belief and seek more evidence.  My thoughts are likely to change.  I am not defensive about it because my position should always be fact-based so if there are new facts I should change.  And I do.

I spend a lot of time talking to believers.  For many, they are not interested in the facts and their minds are made up.  I find that ever so sad and ever so scary.  Had humans always operated that way we would still likely live in caves organized by clans, hunting and gathering food, and worshipping gods of weather and fertility.  I recommend that those who stick to their beliefs regardless of the facts should take all their technology, their cell phones, TV’s, microwaves, computers, and Roombas to the nearest Best Buy and turn them in to be recycled.  It is not reasonable to argue with science and benefit from the fruits of science at the same time.

Please be a knower.  Please know that if your beliefs are in conflict with the evidence and the facts you must abandon your beliefs.  Otherwise, we will all continue to suffer from ill-informed decision-making that has grown to threaten the very existence of this democracy, this secular government, grounded in knowledge and advanced by the application of that knowledge.  The truth will set us all free.  Beliefs without evidence will keep us shackled.

(PS:  Yesterday the new White House Press Secretary announced to reporters that the President was not going to let science get in the way of what needed to be done.  So, there you go.)

What Do You Expect?

A classic study in 1968 conducted by Rosenthal and Jacobson discovered a powerful link between teacher expectations and student achievement.  Teachers in a school were accustomed to reviewing the student IQ scores of their incoming students.  Low and behold those students with the highest IQ scores made the A’s and those whose scores were not so stellar made lower grades.  The study, however, gave teachers erroneous random scores rather than the actual scores.  There was no connection between the actual IQ score and the random score the teachers saw.  Low and behold those students with the highest random number made the A’s and those students whose random number was not so stellar made the lower grades.  Kids with actual low IQ scores performed better than kids with actual high IQ scores if their random number was higher.  Powerful data, and the study has been replicated and verified multiple times.  An entire set of instructional strategies emerged from these data to help teachers expect the best from all their students and communicate such to even the lowest-performing students. 

Do the achievement scores of high IQ kids still matter?  Of course, they do.  But high IQ students tend to do very well.  Black students not so much.  Poor students not so much.  If I was still in education I would be very tempted to start a “Black Kids’ Scores Matter” movement.

And that is the point of Black Lives Matter.  It doesn’t mean white lives or brown lives or rich lives do not matter.  It means we have it within ourselves to change our expectations and thereby change the outcomes.  It is far too easy to simply say Blacks would not be incarcerated to such a level if they did not break the law.  That would be akin to saying kids with low IQ’s are going to do poorly in school because they have low IQ’s.  We know that is not true regarding student performance, why shouldn’t it be true regarding Blacks who have contact with the justice system?  If I roll up on a group of black teenagers, what do I expect?  Or a group of white teenagers?  If I see a white man driving an old truck in an affluent neighborhood do I look at him differently than I do when I see a Black man driving the same truck?  We get what we expect.

When in college I had long hair and a beard and drove a 1963 Chevy Bellaire with a peace symbol on the back window.  I was often stopped and searched for drugs.  None were ever found for a very good reason.  I had none.

I used to drive a Mustang convertible.  I loved that car, but I sure got stopped a lot and warned about speeding.  I have always practiced setting my cruise control 3 or 4 mph about the posted highway limit and that got me stopped, but I rarely got a ticket.  I traded that car in on a pick-up truck and follow the same practice with my cruise control.  I have never been stopped.

I have never seen a Cadillac Esplanade on the side of the road as law enforcement searches the vehicle with Anglo passengers standing to the side.  On the other hand, I can hardly drive anywhere in south Texas and not see all kinds of cars, trucks, and suvs being searched while Latinos wait on the side. 

If a police officer wants to give me a traffic ticket he or she would not have to follow me very long to find a reason to do so.  We get what we expect.

And each time a Black person is shot and killed by law enforcement the expectations get confirmed by all.  Those who expect such outcomes always say the cops had probable cause.  Those of us who are sensitive to expectations may say one more case where Black lives did not matter.  It is time for us to always expect the best of people regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, etc.  For too long we have judged books by their covers and devalued the content of the book.  Law enforcement is sworn to serve and protect and that includes everyone.  Yes, Black Lives Matter.  If we know that, believe that, act on that we will get what we expect.