How do you know what to believe?

One of the underlying assumptions of this reality-tested worldview is that there is a single underlying reality that drives our perceptions of it. However, scientists and philosophers have recently come realize that our perceptions of reality are socially constructed. That is to say, our whole process of testing and verifying reality—and hence our perception of it—rests upon a set of social conventions (e.g., the scientific method), and not reality itself.

Moreover, these conventions often define reality in ways that serve the interests of the powers that be. For example, scientists tend to reject information and ideas that challenge the dominant paradigm until the weight of evidence becomes so overwhelming it can no longer be ignored. Or, experts in law and psychology can define “normality,” and “deviance” in ways that enforce conformity to majority views at the expense of dissenting minorities.

This has culminated in a post-modernist critique of human knowledge, which holds that every form of authority is somewhat arbitrary and self-serving, and therefore suspect. One reaction to this critique is multi-culturalism, which holds that every culture is valid within its own frame of reference. Another is fundamentalism—which can be religious, political or economic—which seeks to settle all controversy by asserting the primacy of its received version of reality as the ultimate authority and the final arbiter of reality.

One the results of this prolonged and increasingly strident cultural confrontation has been a general erosion in the authority of science, confidence in the truthfulness of the media and other sources of vetted secular knowledge. Religious fundamentalists, for example, have sought to undermine the authority of science by dressing up Creationism as Intelligent Design and trying to sell it as a legitimate scientific theory which is being suppressed by an arrogant scientific establishment, even though supernaturalist theories are not amenable to scientific validation. Economic fundamentalism expresses itself in conservative ideology which condemns any expansion of the state, the social safety net, or regulation of free markets. The result is a highly partisan liberal-conservative politics which values ideology over expertise. Political fundamentalists take an “America first,” “love it or leave it” stance which is hostile to any form of self-criticism or dissent.

Our society now contains a significant minority of anti-intellectual True Believers, who do not listen to scientists, academic experts, journalists, or other educated “elites,” whom they see as biased in favor of a reality-tested scientific worldview that is hostile to their supernatural world view.

This has a profoundly disorienting effect on rest of the population, who no longer know who to believe. This shows up in vital issues like global warming, where people don’t know whether they can believe the science. Whole subjects, like the declining fortunes of the middle class, or the internal stresses and contradictions of capitalism can not even be brought up because ideology has driven out all other competing points of view and sources of information.

So, the question is who do you trust as an authority? How did you pick them? How do you tell fact from bullpuckey? How do you guard against self-deception or being fooled in other ways? Do degrees and credentials make a difference? Is ideology a factor in who you believe or disbelieve? Are there opinion leaders you follow? Do you have some method or discipline or skill you rely upon to get to the bottom of things? And do you believe what you believe with absolute certainty?