How do you know if you know anything? You have two paths to answer this question. The first path involves your belief that you do know something. You can choose this path if you are fairly certain that you know something. It may surprise you, but this is not a path of science. This is a Faith-Based path. No matter what anyone tells you, science relies on faith almost as much as religion relies on faith.
Consider the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty and Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems. Both theories show that ultimately, we can never be certain of anything, and that the fundamental bedrock of even science must then be a degree of faith. Formulated by Werner Heisenberg, Nobel Prize winning physicist in 1927, the Uncertainty Principle states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy; the more we nail down the particle’s position, the less we know about its speed and vice versa.
Godel’s first incompleteness theorem states that “No consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.” — Wikipedia
Let me provide a simple example of what these theories tell us. For instance, you may say, “I know the earth is round.” I challenge you to prove this. The only way that you can prove it is by relying or trusting on the wisdom of experts who say that the earth is round. Even if you have a picture of the round earth, how do you know that it is real? In essence, you are relying on faith. It is your faith in someone you trust whom you believe has more knowledge than you do. You cannot prove the earth is round so your belief is based on faith. This explains why climate change deniers are so difficult to argue with. They refuse to accept any evidence from experts on climate whom they disagree with. Instead, they find the inevitable expert who disagrees with many other scientists. Most of us have faith in the majority. But history has countless examples of where the majority were wrong.
The second path you can take is what I call the Path of the Atheist. In this path, you accept what Socrates did that you know nothing. Socrates was called the wisest man in the world because he believed that “I know that I know nothing.” The atheist does not believe anything unless it can be proved to them personally. Since it is impossible that anyone can ever prove anything to you beyond a shadow of a doubt, you must conclude that knowledge (like God) is impossible to know or prove. The atheist concludes that all possibility of ever conclusively proving anything is impossible. Thus no one can really know anything.
The Path of the Atheist diverges from the Faith Based path since with faith we believe things. We believe that there are facts and there is an ultimate truth. Even if we cannot find them ourselves. The scientist’s belief is tempered by realistic probabilities based on experiments and history. The Path of the Atheist does not believe that there is any ultimate truth. Truth is only a process that gets us closer to some approximation that we are finally willing to settle for. The Atheist says, “Show me an ultimate truth that is unvarying and that you can prove will be forever true.” You might argue that the sun will come up tomorrow, but you only have history to rely on for this. The dinosaurs might have believed that they would live forever but all it took was one large asteroid to wipe out millions of years of evolution.
As we go through life, we sometimes choose one path and sometimes the other. Given whatever circumstances we are confronted with, we select the path that provides the most comfort and certainty for us. Even the Path of the Atheist is comforting since the atheist does not expect any irrefutable truth. This gives the atheist the ability to ignore whatever fads and foibles society is following in search of a truth that does not exist, or at least for the atheist does not exist.
What is the meaning of all this? Are we arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of the pin? Are we engaging in the same logic that Bishop Berkeley did. A man who denied that there is a reality of matter apart from what the mind perceived. Some philosophers have argued that we cannot prove or ever know if we are living or dreaming. I would guess that most of you reading this blog persist in the idea that you are truly alive and not dreaming now.
What then is the value of discussing truth? In this age of misinformation, disinformation, false facts, and fake news, it is a matter that we all need to take more seriously. For generations and centuries, humans have searched for the truth. We are told that the “Truth will set us free” and that truth is a value even more important than honesty. But as Sara Gran said ““Most people wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them in the ass and paid for the privilege.” Could it be that to paraphrase Colonel Nathan R. Jessup in a “Few Good Men”, “You don’t want the truth because you can’t handle the truth.”
Truth is a great deal more complicated than we realize. It is one of those “holy grails” which if we find may give us eternal life. Problem is that no one has found either the Holy Grail or the Truth. It is said that you have your truth and I have my truth. Dr. Deming, an expert on quality insisted that nothing could be accomplished without an operational definition of any concept that was going to be studied. He said “An operational definition is a procedure agreed upon for translation of a concept into measurement of some kind.” The science of an operational definition lay in the measurement of the concept but the starting point for measurement lay in the agreement between two “reasonable” people as to what measurement procedure would be used. Without an agreement there was no starting or ending point.
We may meet someone on the street or at a party or it may be a friend or relative and they advance some theory or ideas which contradicts the facts as we know them. A popular controversy these days among some is whether Trump really won the election and if it was not stolen from him. If you believe it was stolen, you will have a set of ideas about what constitutes a “fair” election.
The Faith Based Path could lead one to accept that hundreds of systems across America could not all have been wrong and that the tallies were accurate because someone you trust told you they were. If you do not trust the poll counters, you will reject the decisions made by election boards and cling to the idea that Trump was cheated by liars and scoundrels. Either way it is a matter of faith.
If you follow the Path of the Atheist, you may reject the vote tallies because you do not believe any voting procedure could be foolproof. You accept that there is error in any system and the deciding factor for you lies in the degree of error that you are willing to accept. Given your proclivity to accept a certain amount of error, you will either accept of reject any election results based on the voting tallies.
I chose the Faith Based path and accepted that fifty state election boards cannot all be wrong. On the other hand, I followed the Path of the Atheist since I know that error exists in any procedure, and I do not trust that any election process can rule out all the errors in the system. I accept the errors in life just as I accept the risk of dying on the road tomorrow when I drive someplace. It is not a matter of faith; it is a matter of statistical probability. Tallies like life will never be perfect.
What do we do? First stop looking for an ultimate truth. Truth is like beauty and is in the eye of the beholder. Second, ask others what they base their truth on. See if you can come up with an operational definition for establishing truth that you are both willing to accept. Third, agree on a way to measure the outcome of whatever you are measuring or looking at. Accept that error will always exist and that predictability for any ultimate truth is near zero.
The best we can achieve in life is a “useful” truth that we may find to make life easier and happier for all of us.
I have often been accused of being a pessimist but there is nothing about this quote that is pessimistic. It is simply a fact that we must use our imaginations to see a different world and to believe that a different world can exist. As long as we are stuck in the same thinking that generated our problems, we are not free to consider alternative realities. We need more thinking about possibilities and the future. We are bogged down with what Dr. Deming called the “problems of today.” Deming said, “We must balance the problems of today with the problems of tomorrow.”
I want to make an argument as to why most of what you hear or read is biased, prejudiced and based on narrow minded thinking. Most of what you read will not lead you to the truth but will take you down a path away from the truth. My argument will also apply to what you are about to read. I am biased, narrow minded and prejudiced. So why should you read or listen to what I am about to write? Well, let’s start at the beginning.
I have been seeking the truth or what might pass as “truth” for most of my 75 years on this earth. I was considered the “smartest” guy in the room in many of my high school and college classes. The authorities or those that are supposed to be good judges of truth and knowledge gave me two undergraduate degrees, one master’s degree and a Ph.D. Degree. Once upon a time, I belonged to many different professional associations and was also a member of MENSA, the so-called high IQ society. None of my qualifications or associations prepared me any better than anyone else upon this earth to find the TRUTH. Like most of you, I am still looking and hoping that the “Truth will set me free.” If only, I can find it.
“Rathom campaigned for the U.S. to enter World War I in support of the British. Under his management, the Providence Journal produced a series of exposés of German espionage and propaganda in the U.S. In 2004, that same newspaper reported that much of Rathom’s coverage was a fraud: ‘In truth, the Providence Journal had acquired numerous inside scoops on German activities, mostly from British intelligence sources who used Rathom to plant anti-German stories in the American media.’” – 
“The media are among those that profit by marketing fear – nothing gives a boost to circulation and ratings like a good panic – but the media also promote unreasonable fears for subtler and more compelling reasons. The most profound is the simple love of stories and storytelling. For the media, the most essential ingredient of a good story is the same as that of a good movie, play or tale told by a campfire. It has to be about people and emotions, not numbers and reason. Thus, the particularly tragic death of a single child will be reported around the world while a massive and continuing decline in child mortality rates is hardly noticed.” — Pg. 294
The abyss It is so big that there is no bridging it. None of the sides can see the other side. None of the sides has any common ground with the other side. None of the sides understands the language that the other side speaks. We might as well be earthlings talking to Martians. There is no lingua franca. Many of the “well-meaning” experts exhort both sides to try harder to bridge the gap or to work more diligently to listen to the other side. It seems to be assumed that all it will take to jump the gulf is good intentions. I cry bullshit on this. As the old aphorism goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” It will take more than good intentions to heal the wound that infests our country.
The wants advertised on the TV and in the media are never fulfilling. We have a nation of brainwashed consumers who mistakenly think that more toys, bigger houses, more guns, and luxury cars will make them happy. We are a nation on a never-ending treadmill of consumer materialism where like rats we keep spinning the wheel and hoping to find happiness, but happiness never comes, and drugs take its place. 
As the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the tensions in society grow ever more divisive. We see more road rage, more senseless shootings, more violence between men and women, less loyalty between employers and employees. The underpinning of society that should be based on human integrity and morality is replaced with an opportunism based on an amoral value system. Whatever we can get as long as we break no laws is considered to be moral. We see most politicians that have no commitment to anything except to collect more money so that they can stay in office. Their highest goal is to help the rich get richer, which of course includes themselves. 
I am not talking about the devil here or about spirituality. I am talking about a kind of insidious propaganda that has been spread by many groups and individuals. In this propaganda, one side of America is labeled as moral, ethical, righteous, and just. The other side is the opposite. The other side is everything negative. The other side is a composite of all the demons and evils that Americans believe in. The other side are communists, fascists, atheists, anti-democratic, anti-patriotic and un-American. One side is good. The other side is evil incarnate. You cannot talk to evil. You cannot discuss with the devil why he wants your soul. You cannot debate with Satan over the values that he has. Heaven and hell do not have weekly discussion groups. The language heard today, and what the media publishes drips with hate, innuendo, and disdain. The language fosters violence. I doubt the Founding Fathers ever conceived that the First Amendment would protect such speech. There are three elements that contribute to a hate speech culture that demonizes the other side: 
Malicious labeling is the name calling that goes on between both sides today wherein each side is labeled. You can hear it on almost every talk show program in America today. Name calling and name labeling. Commie pinko leftists! Intellectual elites! Radical socialists! Racist rednecks! Fascist dictators! Politicians, commentators, newscasters, and radio talk show hosts all use malicious labels to insult and demean those they disagree with. What have we let this country become when we allow such name calling? This kind of hyperbole demonizes the other side and creates a divide that cannot be overcome by rational conversation.
I do not think that the Founding Fathers of our nation believed that Government was evil. Certainly, they felt that there could be too much government intrusion on the rights of the populace. They invoked certain safeguards to protect both human rights and states rights. Nevertheless, they did not demonize government and not a single one of the Fathers ever referred to government as evil. Edmund Burke, the famous English conservative said, “The government that governs best is the government that governs least.” He never said, “government was evil.” It has become common place to hear refrains denigrating the role and necessity of government. This steady drumbeat of antigovernmental rhetoric has created a group of people that have no value for government and who support the idea that government should be abolished.
A few years ago I began to wonder why groups like the KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, Antifa, The Proud Boys and many other such groups advocating violence against the government were not labeled as Terrorist Organizations. I asked a lawyer this question and he replied, “it is all politics.” I found that almost all the groups listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “hate groups” were designated as “extremist groups.” This means that they are not illegal, and they have the right to organize, march, rally and basically spread their hate across America. In 2019, The SPLC listed 940 hate groups across the USA. If any of these groups was labeled as a “Terrorist Group,” they would be on the same list as the Taliban, Boko Haram, The Mafia, Mexican Cartels and Al Qaeda. What is the difference between an extremist group and a terrorist group? It might surprise you to learn that a terrorist organization is defined as follows:
If this definition does not apply to the groups that tried to storm the US Capital on January 6th, 2021, I do not know what does. Just yesterday the Canadian government labeled the Proud Boys as a Terrorist Organization. This delegitimizes the group and takes their rights away. For Canada, it is a start. I am wondering when we are going to get started in the USA on such an effort. The First Amendment was never construed to allow hate speech and the advocating of violent actions to overthrow the government. Why do we not have the political will to outlaw these groups? We seem to have little compunction in penalizing Black groups like the Black Lives Matter Movement or the Black Panthers. We have a different standard when it comes to White Supremacy groups. 
The newspapers, TV and the Internet are today the major carriers for the hate and vituperation that has spread across America. On one side of the divide, we find the NY Times, the Washington Post and CNN News. On the other side, we find the NY Post, the Washington Examiner and Fox News. There are countless other purveyors of extreme and fanatical views. Each side reeks of headlines supporting nonobjective views and biased reporting. If objective reporting ever existed in the USA, it has been murdered and buried by the most pervasive media to ever exist. The media carries the hate and violence that is created by politicians, pundits, radio commentators and hate groups and ensures that it gets widely disseminated. Without the media, much of the divide would never have occurred. Hate needs a platform to be spread and the media is more than happy to host anything that it believes will sell itself and its advertising. 
There is a war on sex by politicians. There has always been a war on sex by politicians. It is the longest running war in the history of the world. It is not a gender war but a political war. The goal of political warfare is to alter an opponent’s opinions and actions in favor of the state’s interests without utilizing military power. Such warfare has been waged by the state against sex since the dawn of humanity.
Men want to control the reproductive rights of women. It has taken the #metoomovement to start some noticeable changes in attitudes towards the rape and sexual harassment of women. Politicians are the most notable hypocrites when it comes to the rights of women to determine what is rape and what is not rape. Ministers do not lag far behind in this hypocrisy. I could list hundreds of cases of politicians and ministers being outed for sexual harassment of women. I am sure that you have seen enough of these cases in the news recently. Nevertheless, male politicians occupy a special zone when it come to their belief that they have an unrequited right to a woman’s body. Control is power and power is politics. Sex is war. Women who want the right to determine how their bodies are used are combatants in this war of sex.
The battleground against mixed marriages and sex between opposing races and ethnic groups has now shifted to the issue of Gay sexuality. I think the issues surrounding Gay rights clearly support the thesis that power is at the heart of many laws respecting sexuality rather than economics. (Economics does play a role and we will look at this role soon.) At the present time, there are no explicit statewide laws in 27 states to protect LGBTQ people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations. — 
Sex and Economics:
I read Reich’s book “The Function of the Orgasm” while in graduate school. I was struck by his ideas and the realization of how suppressed sexuality is in our society. We do not treat it as we would any other normal human need. Instead, we pass many laws governing what is right and what is not right, and we allow Madison Avenue to shanghai sexuality for the use of manipulating the rest of the country into buying junk and stuff that we do not need.
“Primary-source accounts of the trial and execution of Socrates are the Apology of Socrates by Plato and the Apology of Socrates to the Jury by Xenophon of Athens, who had been his student; contemporary interpretations include The Trial of Socrates (1988) by the journalist I. F. Stone, and Why Socrates Died: Dispelling the Myths (2009) by the Classics scholar Robin Waterfield.” —- 
If you think about the ideas or premises or nostrums that guide your life, you will soon notice that we have many ideas that along our journey we have adopted. The sources of these ideas are vast. Fairy tales and children’s stories give us ideas such as “A stitch in time saves nine” or the “The race does not always go to the swift” or “Those who do not plan ahead may starve in the winter.” Many of our ideas about living no come from our parents and family. My mother used to say such things as “Ignorance is bliss” and “If you give them enough rope, they will hang themselves.” My father was fond of saying “Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see.” He also used to like to say, “You have nothing to fear from the dead, only the living.” These two later beliefs have guided a great deal of my life.
Aging Capriciously 