Far more dangerous than non-skepticism is inconsistent skepticism. I’ve seen people question the competence and morality of entire professions (tens of thousands of people) yet somehow trust in random websites or videos claiming to tell “the TRUTH.” As our trust in government and institutions erodes, we become increasingly vulnerable to this type of malicious misinformation. We find ourselves with a troublesome quandary. Our trust has eroded for valid reasons because our institutions can be dangerously unreliable on moral and factual issues, but this institutional unreliability has not rendered random-internet-content more trustworthy.
If every source may be biased or wrong, where can we possibly turn? An unsatisfying answer but all I know: we must learn to accept uncertainty, and not just about little things. Hard to stomach as it is, we must sometimes accept uncertainty about important issues. Why? Because misinformation + misinformation != information. Our moral imperative isn’t to do the impossible (i.e. to know what we can’t know); rather, it is to avoid amplifying dangerous misinformation.
Luckily we have a guide for navigating this ocean of uncertainty: while the truth is hard to determine, some falsehoods are easy to identify. One hallmark red flag of falsehood is being asked to believe that entire groups of people are evil, malicious or conspiratorial. Given that large groups of people have perpetrated great evil, I’ll readily admit that this heuristic is imperfect. Yet that is no reason to dismiss it. Why? Evil-doers have no qualms about calling their opposition evil. In fact, regular people have no qualms about calling others — those who oppose their worldview — evil. It’s a fast, convenient way to dismiss good counter-arguments. “Oh you’ve just cited 20 sources demonstrating the safety of GMO crops? You must be a cynical shill of Monsanto.” (Real story; I’ve called “shill” and far worse).
I want to emphasize the stakes here. Claims that “XYZ people are evil; they’re conspiring against us” has been used to motivate otherwise good people to do horrific things. This is the basis of antisemitism. This rhetoric enabled the Holocaust. The more you believe Group XYZ is evil and hellbent on your destruction, the stronger the action you’re willing to take against them.
What can we do, given that “evil” may exist but belief in evil may lead us to commit “evil” ourselves? This is humanity’s greatest and least-discussed moral paradox.
If I had to choose, I’d rather be the victim of emergent evil than its perpetrator. But blessedly, this isn’t a choice we have to make. Skepticism doesn’t mean “never believe, ever” but rather to be alert, require substantial evidence and avoid falling into the truth-obliterating echo chamber of hate and fear. Make “group XYZ are evil” your belief of last resort; your conclusion only after extensive research, sincere introspection, considering counterarguments and getting to know real-life XYZ people.
There is no convenient way to learn the truth, but we can avoid amplifying misinformation and hate.
Image credit: with apologies to René Magritte and a nod to The Truth podcast.
