Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay
SOVEREIGNTY NOTICE:
No one is telling you what to think or believe, or even what is true. Articles and videos offered here do NOT imply any kind of imprimatur of truth or finality on the part of anyone in Rise Up NH, but are offered for consideration as partial perspectives towards gaining a fuller picture of what’s so. In many cases, we are not representing the mainstream view as it is already ubiquitous in the public sphere, though most articles do make reference to or quite obviously take issue with official dogma. Always do your own research, suspend final conclusions in favor of continuing research, ignore what doesn’t ring true for you, and make up your own mind. Collective sense-making is a path, not a destination. |
How Do You Sort Competing Truth Claims?
We have been subjected to an unprecedented level of public restriction since March of 2020. Such drastic measures are having profound effects on our lives, economically, psychologically and socially. Has the pandemic response been truly warranted? Is the information upon which it was based true and trustworthy? The pandemic raises many issues, some of which are considered controversial, and some are considered conspiracy theories.
With the lack of contextual reporting and the relentless push of a fear-based narrative from official quarters, it is not difficult understand why we have seen develop the false polarization that says you’re either in favor of people’s health and survival or in favor of the economy opening back up. With such lack of critical inquiry, anyone who questions the official narrative regarding lockdowns, social distancing or wearing masks is automatically cast as selfish, misguided, crazy, and immoral.
People are reacting to information they are given or happen to come across, believing that such information equates with deep-level knowledge.
So how do we make sense of all of these completing claims? How do we arrive at a more conclusive assessment of what’s really going on? Below are some questions to ask when encountering truth claims:
Is the source credible? Do they have the background and/or credentials to be able to speak knowledgeably about what they are claiming? Do they have an Internet presence I can check?- Do they present a credible claim? Do they back up this claim with facts? Are those facts verifiable? Are they personally engaged in developing the research, data, or applications being discussed? Are there data or studies that are referenced?
- Are other people also reporting similar information? Are they credible sources and are their claims credible? How many other sources are there reporting the same or similar information? Are these sources engaging in their own review and analysis of any source data? Have I considered alternative views of the same data set from authors across a spectrum of knowledge domains?
- Are those making such claims benefiting financially from the sharing of such information? At what level? What agendas are being promoted here? Who else benefits?
- Do those making such claims stand to lose by doing so? What risks are they taking with their reputations or professions?
- How do those who challenge such claims advanced their arguments? Are their arguments founded in verifiable facts or are they based on beliefs, paradigms, or agendas? Do they use straw man arguments and other logical fallacies? Do they dismiss or belittle other points of view, or do they debate in good faith?
- Do those who challenge such claims have any financial or professional investment in doing so? At what level? What are their agendas? What are the costs to them if they are found to be misleading, wrong, or fraudulent?
Narrative Control
Those who want to control the narrative and suppress all other points of view use a variety of strategies. Here are just a few to watch out for:
Narrative Control Tools
Non-stop repetition of propaganda (including disinformation, limited hangouts, etc.), denial, distraction, prevarication, censorship, straw manning and other logical fallacies, etc. Emotive Conjugation is used to designate a judgment for or against a viewpoint, e.g., “I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool.” and “I have reconsidered the matter, you have changed your mind, he has gone back on his word.” (More here.)
Social Control Tools
Stick side: withdrawal/dissociation (inability to even consider non-confirmatory data or narratives); dismissal; marginalization, concern trolling, ad hominen attacks/character/reputation assassination, various logical fallacies, ridicule, censorship, de-platforming, defunding, demoting, law suits, firing, excommunication, jail, killing. Carrot side (conformation perks): safety, approval, acceptance, belonging, prestige, money (grants, jobs, stock options, kickbacks etc.), security, fame.
Various Appeals to Authority
These are often not stated, but implied, quite often by dismissal of any viewpoint that disagrees with the presumed source of authority.
- History/Tradition: this is the way we’ve always done it/always thought
- Credentials: I have studied this more than you/been doing this longer than you/been authorized by [insert institution’s name]
- Seniority: I/we got here first
- Money: I/we control where the money/resources go
- Power: I/we have authority over this; I/we control this; “people I know” control this; there are more of us than there are of you (mob mentality).
- Paradigmatic/Tribal: science says so, my party says so, the papers of record say so, my country says so, my tribe/belief/paradigm says so. Many of these paradigms are invisible, like Game A (rivalrous/zero-sum games), Economic and Social Darwinism, Scientism/Logical Positivism/Atomism.
If we want to entertain more truthful possibilities, it’s time we challenge our confirmation bias and tribal silos that blind us to actual data and heterodox views. Clue: if it makes you uncomfortable even to consider a possibility before deeply considering it, then you are most likely bumping up against a limiting reality bubble. This is the hardest thing of all: keep moving through the discomfort. Suspend conclusion-making either way until you have more data. Be willing to “not know” and “not be certain,” even while you may share “what seems to me.”
Humility is knowing that none of us has the full picture.