Truth [en]

Another thing I’ve wanted to note for a while was pointed out by Kristin
concerning the Kaycee affair. Although I may not agree with everything Kristin
says, her article makes a very interesting and thought-provoking read.

Kristin points out that a story
becomes true through mere repetition
more often than through

We are more likely to believe something because we have heard it many
times, than because we have actually had proof of it or learnt it by
observation (and here, can you smell a tinge of Quine’s
Web of Belief

Now, think about it. How many things to you hold true simply because
enough people have told you? Well, don’t think about it too hard, it might
make you dizzy. It’s making me dizzy, in any case. If it came
public tomorrow that no man ever walked on the moon, I’d
only be half-surprised (yes, I’m aware that “conspirationists” have
gathered plenty of evidence to prove the hoax).

There are some famous examples. Besides the one Quine cites in his book
(about the area of Monaco, which turned out to be falsely
stated in all the major encyclopedias and atlases), do you remember this
thing about spinach containing incredible amounts of
iron? Well, it all started off when somebody messed up one decimal in
their calculations – and it was copied for years ever after without a

So these are examples where academics and books get it wrong. But
normal people do the same thing, of course. How much of what you know
about economics, politics, religion, history and the like
is based on repetition? And how much is based on your direct observation?
Or on proof which has been demonstrated to you?

I don’t mean to say we should stop believing what we are told. I really
hope I don’t mean that. But I find it a little scary –
unsettling, for the least.

3 thoughts on “Truth [en]

  1. although I don’t know your sources, you realize of course that the stories
    surrounding the ‘correction’ of past mistakes (eg “it all started off when
    somebody messed up one decimal in their calculations”), are just as likely
    to have survived through repetition, rather than truth, as the original…
    ahhh, the urban legend.

  2. sure. actually, my source was a book (can’t remember name or author
    though, me bad!) which had investigated such “urban legends” – so it does
    have more credibility for me than the initial “legend”. Of course, maybe I
    should catch one of my chemist friends and have the dosing re-done, that
    would be the final word (at least for me).
    What I really wanted to say is what this implies for the way the world’s
    beliefs hold together. Not just an individual, but the whole society.
    That’s what “scares” me the most.

  3. The only thing that really bothers me about the “proof” that the lunar
    landing was a hoax is one glaring contradiction.
    Evolutionist Scientist contend that the earth and moon have existed for
    billions of years. Thus through the aeons of time the moon travelling
    through space would have picked up a lot of space dust. They trully
    expected three feet or more of dust on the moon. That is why they built
    the landing module with wide feet and long legs. Asimov envisioned the
    lunar lander “slowly sinking out of sight into the dust…” When they got
    there the dust was only an inch or so thick… Do you think that if it had
    been staged, they would have went with popular opinion and built a set
    with more ‘dust’?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *