Last night’s blog wasn’t meant to be about conflict. It was meant to be about something else but took a hard left turn (pun fully intended this time, thank you for pointing that out Alan). When I got started talking about conflict, I realized I wanted to talk about that anyway, so decided to put off what I intended to write in favor of that. So today, we are coming back to write about the original topic, which is the formation and maintaining of belief and knowledge.
If you have been a regular reader, then you should already be aware that I have a background in philosophy. One of my particular interests is epistemology, which is the theory of knowledge. Oxford Languages defines epistemology as “the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.” In other words, how do we know what we know, and what does that mean? A closely related field is the philosophy of science: what is science, how do we do science properly, etc. Both of these things have fascinated me for a long time.
The video I mentioned in my last entry was about how a lot of martial artists (and arts) are increasingly being exposed as frauds, or if not fraudulent, then at least ineffective. (For those who wish to watch the video, you can do so here). During the video, the presenter proposes a definition for an effective martial art: “Does it consistently perform against a completely uncooperative, fully-resisting, aggressive opponent?” He provides several compelling reasons why he uses this definition and presents examples of arts that meet and fail this criterion. He also discusses the reasons that many arts fail.
He pays particular attention to arts that have no basis in physical reality that they should succeed at all, yet somehow display results among disciples, so-called no-touch knockout arts. While doing so, he brings up a term called “epistemic viciousness”, coined in a paper about such martial arts. I’ll leave the author to explain its meaning: “epistemic viciousness is the possession of vices that make one bad at acquiring true beliefs, or give one a tendency to form false ones” (Gillian, 2010*).
These habits are usually those that are exploited by charismatic leaders and are found in followers of many tight-knit organizations whose customs, rules, and beliefs are treated like holy scripture, and are often accepted without critical study. These individuals, when challenged with evidence disproving their beliefs, usually don’t change their minds. On the contrary, the usual tendency, in this case, is to double-down and increase their belief. This obviously creates a number of problems. So, how can this be avoided? We test our beliefs.
One of the leading members of the philosophy of science, Karl Popper, proposed a simple test by which a scientific theory could be tested. One simply makes a statement, then tries to prove it false. Why not try to prove it true? Because proving it true only means you have found a single case where that statement is true, but you haven’t seen every case. But if you find a case where the statement ISN’T, then you know the statement is wrong. The classic example is “All swans are white”. A thousand white swans won’t prove the statement true, but one black swan proves it false.
That solves one part of the problem, but there is another. We have found a way to test whether our beliefs are true or false, but that’s only half the problem. The other half is properly defining what our beliefs are. There are some problems with falsification, and the major one is that it only works if one is very clear about what they are trying to falsify. So it is important to look at the problem and define it carefully.
Let’s start with something easy. “Taxes are bad”. That’s a pretty cut and dried belief, right? Well, is it? Taxes are how the government gets its money. Taxes fund roads, schools, social programs, national parks, the military, everything. If taxes aren’t paid, there is no money to do anything. So maybe we need to examine that belief a little more closely. Generalizations and simple beliefs are often wrong because the world is very rarely that cut and dried. When looking at your beliefs, make sure you have a very clear understanding of what those beliefs are so that you can properly test them.
Let’s look at our martial arts definition: “Does it consistently perform against a completely uncooperative, fully-resisting, aggressive opponent?” That’s a pretty thorough definition. It covers what a martial art is supposed to do at every level. Next question. Is it falsifiable? Yep. If a practitioner that is 100% trained and competent at their art fights against an opponent where all things are equal and loses multiple times, then their art fails the definition.
This is how we avoid that epistemic viciousness. We test our beliefs thoroughly and constantly. We examine them, define them, pin them down, and make sure we have no assumptions. We do our best to understand where those beliefs come from and why we have them. We test those beliefs to make sure they are grounded in reality; that they are fact, and not merely opinion. This is how we keep ourselves in touch with the real world.
But there’s still one last question. One last test to make sure that our beliefs deserve to be held: Does our clearly defined, testable belief that remains true make the world a better place? Does it serve humanity? Does it do as little harm as possible and treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated? If it fails this test, then perhaps you need to reexamine that belief again, no matter how many tests it has passed.
* – Russell, Gillian (2010). Epistemic viciousness in the Martial arts. In Graham Priest & Damon Young (eds.), _Martial Arts and Philosophy_. Chicago and Lasalle, Illinois: Open Court. pp. 129-144.
