Why People Can’t Agree on Facts and What Is True

disagreement on everything 3 2
Psychological and social factors shape which evidence we want to believe.
doble.d/Moment via Getty Images

Does wearing a mask stop the spread of COVID-19? Is climate change driven primarily by human-made emissions? With these kinds of issues dividing the public, it sometimes feels as if people  are losing our ability to agree about basic facts of the world. There have been widespread disagreements about matters of seemingly objective fact in the past, yet the number of recent examples can make it feel as though our shared sense of reality is shrinking.

As a law professor, I’ve written about legal challenges to vaccination requirements and COVID-19 restrictions, as well as what counts as “truth” in court. In other words, I spend a lot of time mulling over how people define truth, and why U.S. society has such a hard time agreeing on it these days.

There are two ideas that can help us think about polarization on matters of fact. The first, “epistemic pluralism,” helps describe U.S. society today, and how we got here. The second, “epistemic dependence,” can help us reflect on where our knowledge comes from in the first place.

Many takes on ‘truth’

I define epistemic pluralism as a persistent state of public disagreement about empirical facts.

When it comes to things that can be proved or disproved, it’s easy to think that everyone could come to the same factual conclusions, if only they had equal access to the same information – which, after all, is more freely available today than at any point in human history. But while the inequality of access to information plays a role, it is not so simple: Psychological, social and political factors also contribute to epistemic pluralism.

For example, psychologist and law professor Dan Kahan and his collaborators have described two phenomena that affect the ways in which people form different beliefs from the same information.

The first is called “identity-protective cognition.” This describes how individuals are motivated to adopt the empirical beliefs of groups they identify with in order to signal that they belong.

The second is “cultural cognition”: people tend to say that a behavior has a greater risk of harm if they disapprove of the behavior for other reasons – handgun regulation and nuclear waste disposal, for example.

These effects are not reduced by intelligence, access to information, or education. Indeed, greater scientific literacy and mathematical ability have been shown to actually increase polarization on scientific issues that have been politicized, such as the cause of climate change or the benefits of gun control. Higher ability in these areas appears to boost people’s ability to interpret the available evidence in favor of their preferred conclusions. 

 Get The Latest By Email

Weekly Magazine Daily Inspiration

Beyond these psychological factors, there is another major source of epistemic pluralism. In a society characterized by freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, individuals bear “burdens of judgment,” as the American philosopher John Rawls wrote. Without the government or an official church telling people what to think, we all have to decide for ourselves – and that inevitably leads to a diversity of moral viewpoints.

Although Rawls was focused on pluralism of moral values, the same is true of beliefs about matters of fact. In the U.S., legal rules and social norms attempt to ensure that the state cannot constrain an individual’s freedom of belief, whether that be about moral values or empirical facts.

This intellectual freedom contributes to epistemic pluralism. So do factors such as educational inequalities, the proliferation of information from untrustworthy sources online, and misinformation campaigns. All together, they provide ample opportunity for people’s shared sense of reality to fragment.

Knowledge takes trust

Another contributor to epistemic pluralism is just how specialized human knowledge has become. No one person could hope to acquire the sum total of all knowledge in a single lifetime. This brings us to the second relevant concept: epistemic dependence.

Knowledge is almost never acquired firsthand, but transmitted by some trusted source. To take a simple example, how do you know who the first president of the United States was? No one alive today witnessed the first presidential inauguration. You could go to the National Archives and ask to see records, but hardly anyone does that. Instead, Americans learned from an elementary school teacher that George Washington was the first president, and we accept that fact because of the teacher’s epistemic authority.

There’s nothing wrong with this; everyone gets most knowledge that way. There’s simply too much knowledge for anyone to independently verify independently all the facts on which we routinely rely.

This is true even in highly specialized areas. Replication is essential to science, but scientists don’t personally replicate every experiment relevant to their field. Even Sir Isaac Newton famously said that his contributions to physics were possible only “by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

However, this raises a tricky problem: Who has sufficient epistemic authority to qualify as an expert on a particular topic? Much of the erosion of our shared reality in recent years seems to be driven by disagreement about whom to believe.

Whom should a nonexpert believe about whether a COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective? Whom should a Georgia voter believe about the legitimacy of their state’s results in the 2020 election: Sidney Powell, an attorney who helped Donald Trump’s legal team try to overturn the 2020 election, or Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger?

The problem in these and other cases is that most people are unable to determine the truth of these matters on their own, yet they are also unable to agree on which experts to trust.

Curious ‘scouts’

There isn’t a simple solution to this problem. But there may be rays of hope.

Intelligence alone doesn’t decrease people’s tendency to let their group identities sway their view of facts, according to Kahan and his colleagues – but very curious people tend to be more resistant to its effects.

Rationality researcher Julia Galef has written about how adopting a “scout” mindset rather than a “soldier’s” can help guard against the psychological factors that can lead our reasoning astray. In her description, a soldier thinker seeks information to use as ammunition against enemies, while a scout approaches the world with the goal of forming an accurate mental model of reality.

There are many forces pulling our collective understandings of the world apart; with some effort, however, we can try to reestablish our common ground.The Conversation

About The Author

James Steiner-Dillon, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Dayton

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Related Books:

Crucial Conversations Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High, Second Edition

by Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, et al.

The long paragraph description goes here.

Click for more info or to order

Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

by Chris Voss and Tahl Raz

The long paragraph description goes here.

Click for more info or to order

Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High

by Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, et al.

The long paragraph description goes here.

Click for more info or to order

Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know About the People We Don't Know

by Malcolm Gladwell

The long paragraph description goes here.

Click for more info or to order

Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most

by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, et al.

The long paragraph description goes here.

Click for more info or to order

You May Also Like

follow InnerSelf on

facebook icontwitter iconyoutube iconinstagram iconpintrest iconrss icon

 Get The Latest By Email

Weekly Magazine Daily Inspiration




a group of gen-Z and their fashion choices
The Rise of Gen Z Fashion: Embracing Y2K Trends and Defying Fashion Norms
by Steven Wright and Gwyneth Moore
Have you seen that cargo pants are back? Young people are once again swishing down hallways and…
A Guide to Transforming Our Mindset for Ecological Solutions
by Jane Goodall, Western Sydney University
“We have a sense that we are about to face immense upheavals,” Maja Göpel writes, and we need to…
various cannabis products
Two Immunologists Reveal the Marvels and Dangers of Cannabis Products
by Prakash Nagarkatti and Mitzi Nagarkatti
Many people are rightly wondering which of these compounds are legal, whether it is safe to consume…
el nino la nina 5 18
Solving the Climate Change Puzzle: Impact on El Niño and La Niña Revealed
by Wenju Cai and Agus Santoso
New research uncovers the connection between human-caused climate change and the intensification of…
a man out jogging
Outside Exercise Can Help Prevent and Treat Mental Health Problems
by Scott Lear
Mental health problems affect one in five people every year. The Canadian Mental Health Association…
Veterans demonstrating in front of Congress in 1932
Woody Guthrie’s Words Echo in the Debt Ceiling Debate: Are Politicians Really Working for the People
by Mark Allan Jackson
Explore the relevance of Woody Guthrie's views on politicians and the national debt as the debt…
Learn to Trust Your Psychic Ability by Working with a Pendulum
by Lisa Campion
One way to learn how to trust our psychic hits is by using a pendulum. Pendulums are great tools…
hands pointing to the words "The Others"
4 Ways To Know You’re in Victim Mode
by Friedemann Schaub, M.D., Ph.D.
The inner victim is not only a fundamental aspect of our psyche but also one of the most powerful.

New Attitudes - New Possibilities

InnerSelf.comClimateImpactNews.com | InnerPower.net
MightyNatural.com | WholisticPolitics.com | InnerSelf Market
Copyright ©1985 - 2021 InnerSelf Publications. All Rights Reserved.