The speaker contends that so-called ''facts- often turn out to be false, and thereforethat we should distrust whatever we are
told is factual. Although the speaker overlookscertain circumstances in which undue
skepticism might be counterproductive,and even harmful, on balance I agree that we should not passively accept whatever ispassed off as fact; otherwise, humm knowledge would never advance.I turn first to so-called "scientific facts," by which I mean current prevailing notionsabout the nature of the physical universe that have withstood the test of rigorousscientific and logical scrutiny.The very
notion of
scientific progress is predicatedon such scrutiny. Indeed the
history of science is in large measure a history of challenges to so-called "scientific facts"-challenges which have paved the way for scientificprogress. For example. in challenging the notion that the earth was in a fmedposition at the center of the universe, Copernicus paved the way for the corroboratingobservations of Galileo a century later, and ultimately for Newton''s principles ofgravity upon which all modem science depends.The staggering cumulative impactof Copernicus'' rejection of what he had been told was true provides strong supportfor the speaker''s advice when it comes to scientific facts.Another example of the value of distrusting what we are told is scientific factinvolves the debate over whether human behavioral traits are a function of internalphysical forces ("nature") or of learning and environment ("nurture"). Throughouthuman history the prevailing \im has shifted many times.The ancients assumed thatour behavior was governed by the whims of the gods; in medieval times it becameaccepted fact that human behavior is dictated by bodily humours, or fluids; this "fact"later yielded to the notion that we are primarily products of our upbringing andenvironment. Now researchers are discovering that many behavioral traits are largelya function of the unique neurological suucture of each individual''s brain.Thus onlyby distrusting
facts about human behavior can we advance in our scientific knowledgeand, in turn, learn to deal more effectively with human behavioral issues in suchfields as education, juvenile delinquency. criminal reform, and mental illness.The value of skepticism about so-called -factsmis not limited to the physical sciences.When it comes to the social
sciences we should always be skeptical aboutwhat is presented to us as historical fact.Textbooks can paint distorted pictures ofhistorical events, and of their causes and consequences. After all, history in the makingis always viewed firsthand through the eyes of subjective witnesses, then recordedby fallible journalists with their own cultural biases and agendas, then interpreted byhistorians with limited, and often tainted. information. And when it comes to factualassumptions underlying theories in the social sciences, we should be even more distrusting and skeptical, because such assumptions inherently defy deductive proof, ordisproof. Skepticism should extend to the law as well. While law students, lawyers,legislators, and jurists must learn to appreciate mditional legal doctrines and principles,at the same time they must continually question their correctness-in termsof their fairness and continuing relevance.Admittedly, in some cases undue skepticism can be counterproductive, and evenharmful. For instance, we must accept current notions about the constancy of gmvityand other basic laws of physics; othepise, we would live in continual fear that theworld around us would literally come crashing down on us. Undue skepticism can alsobe psychologically unhealthy when distrust borders on paranoia. Finally,common senseinforms me that young people should first develop a foundation of experiential knowledgebefore they are encouraged to think critically about what they are told is fact.To sum up, a certain measure of distrust of so-called "facts" is the very stuff ofwhich human knd progress are fashioned, whether in the physical sciences,the social sciences, or the law.Therefore, with few exceptions I strongly agreethat we should strive to look at facts through skeptical eyes.
More abstracts about the Should all so-called facts be mistrusted?