Knowledge: mere opinion, fixed or subject to change?

Weighing that which is generally regarded as knowledge against the scales of opinion and knowledge that is either immutable or subject to correction in the future was helpful for me because these classifications directly affect how journalists portray such claims to knowledge.

It is exactly the confusion about this matter that has led to misinformation in the news media. Meanwhile, individuals have intuitively perceived that truth is not comprised of either-or absolutes and have rebelled against this dichotomous thinking by pushing a creed of relativism.

The press has an important responsibility of filtering out the zero-sum game between these two camps in its presentation of the knowledge it is meant to help generate and apply, and to assist readers in acquiring.

For example, in the presentation of scientific theories and religious convictions in the news media, it is crucial to properly convey the category of knowledge into which they fall because—as studies in almost every field have shown—these are the two systems of knowledge that have been the real progenitors of civilization. So nothing short of civilization is at stake.

To automatically present all scientific theories as immutable, incorrigible knowledge would not adequately represent the reality of the evolutionary path that science has followed, with the exception of perhaps pure mathematics. Especially in the unfolding period of transition, in which the scientific fundamentals rooted in the Cartesian-Newtonian worldview are being constantly challenged, the oversimplified science journalism seems naïve, out-of-touch, irrelevant and unreliable.

Similarly, when the majority of the world professes belief in a spiritual dimension of existence, the press—following suit with the current dominant consumerist-materialist culture—comes across as belligerent and having hidden motives in its refusal to present religious conviction as anything else than mere opinions. Meanwhile, believers consider Immutable to be one of the Names of God.

This last point is not to be argued, as debate and contention must be recognized for their worth: nothing (centuries of philosophical disputes have proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt). Instead, the point must be demonstrated in action and, with time, the proof will be irrefutable.

For those who find that hard to believe need only look to the process required for theories of racial superiority to travel the spectrum from widely accepted “incorrigible knowledge” to merely harmful opinion. We as humans have learned nothing if we have not learned that we are never done learning.

(Mortimer Adler’s Ten Philosophical Mistakes sparked this reflection.)

Human Rights: moral authority or relativity?

The objections to the present tone of the discourse of human rights seem to be framed around the suspicion that Western civilization is seeking to assert itself as the moral authority and beneficiary, as well as the aversion to the idea that such categorical righteousness exists. By extension, I believe the thinking of those who are bothered by this exchange of ideas–that categories originating in so-called developed countries would be favourably presented to so-called developing countries–is heavily influenced by a brand of moral relativism.

Religious groups and non-governmental organizations from the West may be at the centre of the debate over the universal morality of human rights, with the moral thinkers on the periphery offering criticisms but not solutions. However, this dispute also often involves governments pitted against each other and against multi-national coalitions. A recent situation that comes to mind first is the deadlocked presidential election in Zimbabwe. At the first suggestion that the U.S. or the United Nations might intervene, influential individuals and nations in the African continent warned that the power struggle was an African problem and needed an African solution. True leadership would entail declaring unity to be the central aim and interest of the region, and welcoming all who wish to consult and act on the means to achieve that end.

First, we must overcome our aversions to and suspicions of every promotion of human rights issues; that all is hopelessly tainted by both the ideology of individualism and ulterior motives of the proponents of Western policies. Such mainstream criticisms about the moral failures of globalization–of course, there is more truth to some than others-have not yet, on the most part, offered a viable solution to the problem. By only contributing destructive criticism, these “moral thinkers” are in fact preventing any learning or progress, however imperfect it may be.

Before anyone despairs that we’ve reached checkmate, there is one solution that hasn’t been tested, and that is to infuse the human rights discourse with the requisite spiritual component and the realization of the harmony between science and religion. More on that to come.

Goal No. 1 of the Millenium Development Goals

Goal number one of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals is to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. That reducing extreme wealth is left out of this aim, set for the year 2015, makes me wonder whether it was omitted because the officials understand that closing the gaping disparity between rich and poor must curb the extremities from both sides, or rather because they haven’t yet arrived at this understanding.

One thing that the current global economic crisis has led me to suspect is that Western capitalistic philosophy believes wealth doesn’t have to taken from some to be distributed, as it can simply be created. However, as the bottom drops from beneath the trillions of dollars of virtual money that was generated by the grown-up equivalent of “let’s pretend” called a “bubble”, many would probably question this belief, if only they could understand how such a complex system of gambling based on mathematical equations actually worked and how it was allowed to wreak such havoc on the entire world. A very limited number of experts can actually understand and perform these equations, and only the elite have access to these experts. This is a glaring example of institutionalized inequality.

Decision-making behind the veil of ignorance

What does the veil of ignorance fail to cover up?

“At the group level, a concern for justice is the indispensable compass in collective decision making, because it is the only means by which unity of thought and action can be achieved. Far from encouraging the punitive spirit that has often masqueraded under its name in past ages, justice is the practical expression of awareness that, in the achievement of human progress, the interests of the individual and those of society are inextricably linked. To the extent that justice becomes a guiding concern of human interaction, a consultative climate is encouraged that permits options to be examined dispassionately and appropriate courses of action selected. In such a climate the perennial tendencies toward manipulation and partisanship are far less likely to deflect the decision-making process.” Passage from The Prosperity of Humankind.

My observations of the essentiality of justice in decision-making processes have been gathered through experiences with both mutualistic relationships that seek to build unity and adversarial relationships that seek to impose a set of ideas by one group on others through contentious negotiation. Interestingly, however, both processes exist in an interconnected world.