How Do We Know What We Know? By Butler Shaff er
(2010-12-11 at 17:23:16 )

How Do We Know What We Know? By Butler Shaff er

This is a talk given at the Mises Institute, on October 9, 2010, at a
conference titled "Economic Recovery: Washingtons Big Lie."

When I first offered this title for my talk, it was suggested that I add
the question "how do we know when the state is lying?" I do not know if
this was an effort to limit my presentation to thirty seconds, for I
could summarize my answer in the classic words of my favorite stand-up
philosopher, George Carlin: "my first rule: I do not believe anything the
government tells me." Kurt Vonnegut offered similar advice. While
traveling back to America at the end of World War II, Vonnegut asked a
friend what he had learned from his wartime experiences: "never to
believe anything my government tells me," the friend answered. Because
the State is grounded in such a network of lies, contradictions,
deceptions, and conflicts, it is safe to say that political systems are
inherently in conflict with reality, and must resort to intentional
distortions of truth as a way of trying to appear Coherent to a Gullible
Public. The "Big Lie," as defended by Adolf Hitler, has long been a tool
of Statism. The more "Colossal" the lie, Hitler intoned, the greater the
propensity for Homo Boobus to believe it. Because human beings are
accustomed to telling small lies, but would be embarrassed to tell
outlandish ones, so Hitler reasoned, the great lie acquires credibility.

For this reason, the lies that have been inseparable from truth
surrounding 9/11, continue to be accepted by vast numbers of Americans.
Likewise, the state-serving myth that global warming is the product of
human activity, continues to be recited by politicians and other
government officials, academics, and members of the media, despite the
refutations offered by literally hundreds of highly-respected scientists
who have refused being baptized into the secular religion of Algoreism.

With the surface temperatures of Mars increasing, while its polar ice is
melting, I have heard none of the high-church environmentalists respond
to my claim that this proves the existence of human-like beings - with
their SUVs and aerosol sprays - on Mars! In so many ways are intelligent
people reminded to be skeptical of consensus-based definitions of
reality.

State action does to the harmonious order of human society what the
throwing of a rock through the network of a spider web does: it disrupts
- and sometimes destroys - existing patterns of interconnectedness.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the political manipulation and
interference with the informal order of the marketplace. With the help of
a mainstream media and academia, the state then resorts to all kinds of
fabrications to convince us of the magnificence of the emperors new
clothing.

Alternative technologies - particularly the Internet - make it so much
easier to uncover and reveal the systematic lying necessary to the
success of political entities. A libertarian newscaster friend once told
me "I have been tempted to go on the air and say ‘good morning, and here
are the lies your government would like you to believe today."

When Jon Stewarts The Daily Show is a perennial award winner for
television news reporting, the habitual lying engaged in by government
officials will continue to erode the credibility of the state, the media,
and its academic lackeys. The respect once enjoyed by these major sources
of information in our world, has been in sharp decline in the P I
(post-Internet) years. The rapidly diminishing circulations of major
newspapers and viewers of network television newscasts, are due not only
to the parallel competition provided by the Internet, but to a widespread
awakening of the dishonest nature of what the established media report.

Nor can we forget the widespread challenge to statism reflected in Ron
Pauls efforts, an undertaking that the political parties and the media
try to deflect into the harmless babblings of Sarah Palin. I do not know
what is the more fitting metaphor for our times: [a] the manner in which
the Russian people regularly laughed at government "newscasts," or [b]
that poignant scene at the end of Orwells Animal Farm, as the powerless
farm animals looked in the window of the farm house to see the ruling
pigs partying with the hated humans.

In these early years of the fourth stage of the "information revolution,"
we are once again encountering a truth made evident by Johann Gutenberg:
information is very liberating. For this same reason, the political
establishment has long adhered to Mark Twains advice: "Truth is the most
valuable thing we have. Let us economize it." As it always has, the State
seeks to protect itself from the harsh realities of "truth" by warring
against persons and systems that contradict the self-serving mindset it
requires for an obedient and servile public.

Proposals have been made, by those in power, to give the president the
power to shut down the Internet - in the name of "national security," of
course. One of the proponents of this measure, Senator Joe Lieberman,
went so far as to make a favorable comparison to the Chinese Government
which "can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to
have that here too." That little criticism of this plan - or of
Liebermans defense of it - have been offered within the mainstream media
[for whom the demise of the Internet would be competitively advantageous]
provides insight into the confrontation between those whose desire is to
inform others, and those who want to be keepers of the thoughts of others.
As there will always be practitioners of free expression and seekers of
truth among us, and as I have more trust and confidence in the nerds,
geeks, and hackers who are forever looking to expand the capacities of
computer-technologies, I suspect that the efforts of the established
order to silence those who ask questions, will fail.

The States war against truth-seeking is also seen in its reptilian
reaction to the Wikileaks phenomenon; its continuing efforts to classify
its activities as "secret" - lest Boobus discover the real nature of the
State - and, more recently, the Pentagons buying and destroying all of
Anthony Shaffers - no relation - revelatory book about the underside of
US activities in Afghanistan.

That members of the political establishment are so economically
illiterate as to fail to see how this book-burning will only increase
demand for the book - a demand I suspect the publisher will be eager to
satisfy - should encourage those of us who love the marketplace! In this
respect, the Pentagon has placed itself in the same position that Bill
O Reilly did when, at the outset of the war against Iraq, he urged all
good patriotic types to buy French wines and pour them down the sewer to
punish the French for not having joined in the war effort! That will
teach them a lesson! I have three books that have been published, none of
which have received much attention. Perhaps I can persuade the Pentagon
and Bill O Reilly to undertake a campaign to have Americans buy copies of
my books and conduct highly-publicized book-burnings thereof!

All-in-all I found Karen Kwiatkowskis recent LRC blog more to my liking.
In explaining the efforts of those in power to suppress uncomfortable
information, she reminded us that "boys and girls in DC are just like us!
They just want to be left alone, to conduct their business and nurture
their friendships, to make their way in the world without having someone
always looking over their shoulder, and judging them. It is actually kind
of sweet, dontcha think?"

For the aforesaid reasons, the systematic lying associated with political
systems troubles me less than do the efforts of statists to undertake
their programs even with the very best of intentions. I am willing, for
the sake of discussion, to grant the political classes the most honest
and sincere of motives; to presume that they really want to promote the
best possible conditions in the world for all of mankind. That I do not
truly believe this is another matter. For my purposes, here, I am
prepared to give the statists the benefit of doubt as to their
motivations.

The most damaging falsehood associated with governmental action is the
belief - common to the entire institutional order - that social order is
dependent upon pyramidal, vertical power structures. Contrary to its
avowed purpose, this premise generates societal disorder, brought on by
two factors: [1] the refusal of the system to respect the inviolability
of property interests which, in turn, is destructive of individual
liberty - about which I have written extensively elsewhere - and [2] the
point upon which I am focusing today: the epistemological problems
associated with presuming the capacity to predict the outcomes of complex
relationships. If we understood the lesson from the study of chaos,
namely that complex behavior always produces unpredictable consequences,
we might be less arrogant in efforts to mandate the behavior of people.
More than that, if we understood just how inherently and unavoidably
limited is our knowledge of the world, we might be less Hubristic In Our
Insistence Upon Managing The Lives Of Others.

For example, as the federal government was finalizing its plans for the
construction of a nuclear-waste storage facility in Yucca Mountain,
Nevada, a federal court directed the Department of Energy to predict the
consequences that would be generated for a period of time ranging from
300,000 to 1,000,000 years. To most of us who have a sense of
responsibility for our actions, I suspect the courts order was premised
on the importance of considering long-term costs. The troublesome
implications of this judicial response have to do with the courts sense
that governments are capable of accurately predicting the course of
events for the next one million years. My study of geology, as well as of
human existence on Earth, convince me otherwise. Bearing in mind that
human beings have likely been on this planet for anywhere from 200,000 to
one million years - depending upon whether various skeletal remains are
to be defined as "human" or of an earlier species - the court is
directing the outcome of human action for a time period equal to mankinds
entire history. Furthermore, the court is presuming the kind of geologic
and climatological stability that would fail to consider such factors as
plate tectonics, earthquakes, and volcanoes; of continental drift and the
magnetic reversals of the poles; periodic ice ages and massive flooding;
periods of solar flares; the comets and asteroids that have occasionally
hit the earth; the cutting-and-filling nature of rivers which, along with
the continuing processes of wind and water erosion, continually refigure
the face of the planet. To put such inconstancies into the context of the
courts order, you should know that, during the last one million years,
there have likely been ten major ice ages; the meteor that hit in Arizona
and created the giant crater, probably did so about 200,000 years ago;
the volcanic eruption that destroyed the island of Krakatoa and produced
long-term and worldwide climatological effects, including tsunamis as
distant as South Africa, occurred but 127 years ago. Yucca Mountain,
itself, was created by a number of volcanic eruptions.

There are so many interconnected, variable, and unknown factors at work
in nature - including the myriad consequences of human action - that it
borders on magical thinking to believe that one can anticipate the
playing out of this constantly changing interplay over such an extended
period of time. We are fortunate to get accurate predictions of next
weeks weather; expecting government agencies to prognosticate over a one
million year period becomes a test of our sense of humor!

A belief in absolute truths, coupled with a self-righteous resolve to
enforce such views upon the world, is a pathology that must be confronted
head-on if we are to preserve any semblance of humanity. If we are to
overcome our lemming-like march into mutual self-destruction, we must
begin at the source of the problem. The relevant question, in my view,
is this: is it possible for us to have an empirical understanding of the
world, or to act upon the basis of philosophical principles and values,
other than through our subjective understanding? Are there such qualities
as "objective" truths - be they empirical or moral - that operate in the
world outside of our own mind? In the realm of economics, are there
objective values to be ascribed to goods and services that are apart from
the values given them by freely-contracting parties? Indeed, though we
can speak of the "price" arrived at in a transaction as objective, is it
not evident that the value given to that item is not only subjective -
differing in the minds of each contracting party - but, further, [a] can
never equal the objective price, and [b] can never be known even to the
parties involved? Is it possible for us to extend this awareness of the
subjective underpinnings of economic transactions into our efforts to
understand and function in the world in all other areas? Using a
dictionary definition, are there "truths" in the world that "exist
independently of mind?" If there are, can we know of such matters other
than through our individualized opinions? I believe that everything you
or I can know about the world - whether in the form of empirical
information or philosophic principles - derive from our subjective
experiences, and nothing more.

To begin with, the very concept of "knowledge" necessarily implies a
knower. Whatever the reality that exists in the universe, there can be
no knowledge of it without an observer. This is the meaning of Bishop
Berkeleys teaser about the sound of a falling tree in a deserted forest:
sound is something received by auditory senses. Heisenbergs "uncertainty
principle" reminds us of the inseparable ties between the "observer" and
the "observed."

From the moment of our birth until our death, we experience ourselves and
our world - including others - not in the mechanistic fashion of a video
camera recording sensory impressions. Rather, we interact with our world,
organizing our experiences into categories and concepts by which we make
comparisons and contrasts. It is the mind, alone, that creates these
categories; they do not exist beyond the boundaries of our mind. What we
think of as the world is simply that: thoughts about the world.

Learning is an art form and, like painters and sculptors, we outwardly
manifest our inner visions of the world and ourselves. We learn only
because our mind is dissatisfied with its existing patterns of
understanding, and wishes to create more sophisticated patterns with
which to both inform and amuse itself. In accepting dogmas about "the
good, the true, and the beautiful" residing outside ourselves, we have
surrendered, to institutions, the perceptive, creative, and spiritual
essence of what it means to be human.

We are seekers of information. The word "inform" means: to give shape
within. Within what, other than the mind? Gregory Bateson defined
"information" as "differences that matter." Matter to whom? Who is it
that notices the "differences," and by what criteria - and where located
- are distinctions and similarities to be evaluated? The current study
of "chaos," or "complexity," is making us aware that conditions we have
heretofore regarded as "disordered turbulence," have regularities to
them that we had not previously seen. But has nature suddenly become
more orderly, or has our subjective mind - with the help of computer
technologies - only developed more sophisticated ways of organizing its
experiences with nature?

We are also not simply the seekers, but the creators, of the moral and
aesthetic measures by which we live what Socrates called "the examined
life." We are, as the poet Seamus Heaney expressed it, "the hunters and
gatherers of values." But the quest takes place within the vast expanse
of the subjective mind, wherein the hunter negotiates with the world as
a means of pursuing his or her sense of being.

We think dualistically and abstractly, dividing our experiences into
mutually exclusive categories. The hard-wiring of our brains probably
prevents us from dealing with reality in any other way. Our mind needs to
become aware of this inherent limitation in its capacities for dealing
with the world. But the conscious mind enjoys its monopolistic position
in directing our lives. Perhaps the insight offered by Joseph Conrad may
help us: "I used to think the mind was the most important part of a
person. Then I realized what part of me is telling me that."

The dualistic categories we employ are determined not by the inherent
nature of anything we are observing, but by systems of thought that
others have taught us. Are avocadoes and tomatoes "fruits" or
"vegetables?" A botanist will give you one answer, while the produce
manager of your local supermarket will give you another. Which one is
"objectively" correct, or is it not clear that there is no "correct"
answer beyond the subjective thoughts of the person addressing the
question?

We deal with the universe abstractly, as images and concepts that our
mind has created. When we are engaged in abstraction, our understanding
becomes - in the words of one dictionary - "considered apart from matter
or from specific examples; not concrete." Such a process is about the
world, but not of it. To even distinguish a "thing" from its environment
is to conceptualize it, to convert the experience into an idea. What are
the qualities of any of these identified "things" that tell us what they
are, apart from the abstract definitions we have created in our minds?

I suspect that the main reason we do not have memories of our first days
and weeks out of the womb is that we had the numerous experiences, but no
conceptual tools - no words - that allowed us to define, categorize, and
organize these experiences. We did not have labels to attach to our world.
Because of this interplay between our experiences, and how those
experiences have been recorded and organized through the abstractions in
which we have been trained, what we are capable of knowing about the
world may rise no higher than how we have subjectively defined that world.

The problem this creates for us is that our lives get so wrapped up in
conceptualization, ideation, and other abstractions, that we learn to
confuse how our mind has organized the world with "reality" itself. The
words that we use to describe things are fundamentally different from
what it is we are describing. Lest you have not learned this important
lesson, let me inform you that the word water will not quench your
thirst. Let me also remind you that these drinking glasses, and my eye-
glasses are not synonymous terms, and that both are made of plastic, not
glass.

The world does not inform us of its meaning - if, indeed, there is such
a thing as some objective "meaning" to existence. Rather, we project onto
the world the patterns we find meaningful; the ones we have put together
that best explain our experiences in the world. These patterns differ
from one human to another, depending upon our unique experiences.
Whatever "meaning" we find in our world, derives from a composite of the
individual pictures each of us has put together in forming our
experiences.

A classroom exercise I have used is to ask students to draw a picture of
a previously-undiscovered life form,-- one that is not simply a composite
of life forms already familiar to them. They quickly discover the
difficulty associated with "seeing" the universe other than in patterns
that are already familiar to them.

We have all seen small babies putting some item in their mouths, then
hearing aunt Edith shriek: "look out, she is going to eat that pen!",
then grabbing it from her. Babies are not trying to eat everything they
encounter, but they are trying to discover the nature of pens - and other
objects - by testing them through the sensory tools with which they have
many of their earliest experiences: the sense of taste. The baby, having
found out that other things placed in her mouth produced a pleasurable
effect, now discovers that the pen does not, and so puts it aside. She
has learned an important conceptual lesson: things with nipples taste
good, things with lids do not. She has also learned an important social
lesson: the world is plagued with a variety of aunt Ediths who insist
upon interfering with and restraining their life experiences!

Let me emphasize that I am not suggesting that what we think we "know"
does not reflect the "real world," nor am I suggesting that there is no
objective universe. I am convinced that reality does exist, for if it is
only an illusion, it seems to be one that we all share. I am not taking
a solipsistic approach to things: I have had too many friends and
relatives die - for whom I suspect reality has come to an end - while I
have gone on living.

I am also not subscribing to a belief in moral relativism. Under no
circumstances am I prepared to acknowledge that your values - to the
degree they differ from my own - are as "good" as my values! I will go
even further and assert that my values, and my principles, and my
understanding of the world, are superior to those of everyone else in
this room. If I thought that you had knowledge, values, or principles
that were superior to mine, I would adopt yours. Obviously! This is one
of the ways in which we learn from one another. We deal with the world
as opinion, but most of us subscribe to the view that some peoples
opinions (i.e., our own) are better than others. But until you are in a
position to satisfy what my mind informs me is an improvement upon my
understanding, I shall stick with my own subjective opinions, . . .
just as you will.

I am insisting, however, that my understanding of whatever the universe
may consist is entirely dependent upon the content of my subjective mind,
and that my expression of that understanding is but an internally-
constructed network of opinions. My opinions may or may not conform to
the outer world, but they nonetheless remain opinions. Do we live in a
geocentric or heliocentric universe, and how would we find out? How would
the sky appear to us if the sun did orbit the earth? And if we are so
convinced that it does not, why do we still speak of "sunrises" and
"sunsets?"

I once had a discussion of this topic with a friend of mine, a man with
a good understanding and confidence in the physical and biological
sciences. I asked him why he believed in a heliocentric universe, when
our visual observations seem to support a geocentric position. "The math
supports the heliocentric view," he said. I responded: "this raises two
points: [1] why do you rely upon mathematics to validate your view? After
all, the Bible suggests a geocentric view. Why do you accept one source
over another? Furthermore, [2] have you done the math, or have you only
relied upon those who told you they have?" He knew that I agreed with his
point of view, but I was desirous of prodding him with the same question
I am doing to you today: how do you know what you know? How do you know
that your understanding of the world is valid?

Political behavior is not the only realm in which I maintain my
skepticism. In matters of religion, the sciences, politics, philosophy,
etc., I remain an agnostic; I am skeptical of all that I read and hear.
I must be convinced of the truth of what you tell me. But I am unable to
judge of the truth of any point of view other than by comparing it with
the opinions I have previously put together in my mind. While I have
strong opinions on all kinds of topics, I also have a strong skepticism
about my own mind, because I am aware of its limitations. It is this
skepticism that underlies my anarchist sentiments, because I know that I
lack the omniscience necessary for the running of your life; that your
preferences and your visions are not my own; and that if we are to live
free, peaceful, creative, and cooperative lives, we must abandon the
kind of thinking that causes us to see others as objects to be reformed.

My science friends become ruffled when I suggest to them that, like the
religionists, they ground much of their understanding in faith, as do I,
as do you. My understanding of ancient history is based entirely upon
what others have informed me: I was not around during the Punic Wars, nor
have I had any direct experiences with the American Revolutionary War.
If I had had such experiences, I would doubtless have interpreted their
meaning according to my prior learning, which might very well have
differed from those of a man standing next to me. So much of what we
know is based upon trust: a confidence that our parents, friends,
teachers, scientists, historians, religious figures, and others have
provided us with accurate and truthful information. But we must remain
skeptical of all such learning, lest such sources were in error. Did
King Arthur actually exist? What about Buddha, or Dracula, or Santa
Claus?

After all of these years, I am convinced that human beings are driven by
a need for spiritual or religious experiences; a need to transcend ones
individual existence and to connect up with the universe in some way. I
do not think of such needs in the way they are usually defined: as
organized churches, although they might include that. These needs find
expression in many ways: the need for understanding, fame, riches, power,
etc., being among them. The sciences are one expression of this need.

When I put the book of Genesis alongside a physics book that speaks of
the "big bang," I am amazed at the similar explanations for the creation
of the universe: the great void, followed by a great explosion of light.
When my science friends remind me that echoes of this "big bang" are to
be found in background radiation in the universe, I ask "perhaps God has
a giant microwave." But whether we think of ourselves as "religionists"
or "scientists," I believe we are engaged in the same pursuit: answers
to the questions: where did it all come from, where is it all going,
and what rules are in place in the present?

Based upon our prior experiences, each of us has a different approach to
such questions. I do not believe in a God, but I do believe there is a
life force in the universe. Consistent with my philosophic views
generally, I do not see this life force centralized in a universal
authority figure, but decentralized among us all, including - as part of
the all - the flowers I watch turn their faces each day to catch the
nourishment provided by the sun.

We humans are destroying ourselves through a self-righteousness grounded
in a belief in objective truths, whether it comes from religious
fundamentalists, advocates of "politically correct" speech and behavior,
or ideologues who seek to forcibly redesign economic and social systems
to suit their visions of how the world should perform. I will go even
further and suggest to you that a belief in objective truths and values
is consistent with political collectivism and inconsistent with
individual liberty. If "truth" and "moral principles" reside beyond the
individual - and there has never been a shortage of men and women
prepared to define and describe this moral order for the rest of us -
why should we not want to mandate uniform, standardized social systems
and practices to forcibly direct people to comply with such eternal and
transcendent principles? Why would we be expected to show any tolerance
for those whose ideas or conduct differed from the objective truths?

We are unable to transcend the limited capacities of our mind other than,
perhaps, by becoming and remaining constantly aware of such limitations.
If we can do that, we may put an end to our horribly destructive habits
while, in so doing, transfuse those anti-life energies into the
wonderfully creative pursuits that have generated a life-sustaining
civilization.

For the sake of living honestly, peacefully, and in a condition of
liberty, let us turn our minds inwardly, like a mirror, so that we may
reflect upon the creative capacities that lie within us, through which
we inwardly construct our images of the world. Let us acknowledge the
complementary nature of our minds: that we can subjectively comprehend
and act upon the universe without, at the same time, having our
understanding precisely correlate with the world in which we live. Let
us have the humility to recognize that we are generally able to function
well in a complicated universe in spite of never having complete and
certain knowledge. Let us recognize that one who believes in a flat-
earth, geocentric world can still farm a good field of wheat; and that a
man who rejects your moral philosophy may still be a good neighbor.

We have been trained to look for godliness, virtue, direction, and truth
outside ourselves, in some agency external to ourselves. Such beliefs
have been generated largely by those who have either a religion or a
political system to fasten upon the necks of their fellow beings. It is
through such thinking that some have been able to control the thoughts
and actions of others by attacking their victims sense of self-capacity
and worthiness to function in the world.

It is time that we discovered the inner sense of what it means to be a
free and responsible individual. We are destroying ourselves through
processes by which we have allowed others to define both reality and
propriety for us. Like dogs, we have learned to beg and roll over upon
command from our masters, to slobber in anticipation of some small
morsel, and to carry our leashes in our own mouths. None of this could
have been accomplished without our willingness to believe that we are
inwardly incapable of defining our own purposes in life or pursuing our
own interests without the supervision of others. It has been our lack of
confidence in the sufficiency of our inner being that permits such
psychic self-flagellation. Why do we persist in living irresponsibly,
by allowing others to form our judgments? Why do we fear our own minds,
but insist on believing the thinking of others?

What powers lay within the creative processes of our subjective minds!
We have been able to discover the secrets of nature, make sophisticated
tools, produce great music and other art forms, create agricultural and
industrial methods of producing goods and services, generate languages
and mathematical systems, and form organizations that allow us to
cooperate for our mutual interests. But even more impressive has been our
minds capacities for generating moral principles and even gods. Within
the complexities of our minds are to be found the engines of creation
that have made mankind both the creative genius and the destructive beast
that we are. It gives me a sense of liberated exhilaration to know that,
because of the processes of my subjective mind, I am the source of the
knowledge, values, and decision-making effectiveness upon which I rely
for my short stay on this planet. What greater expression than this of
what it means to be a free individual?

For the sake of living well - in the fullest material and spiritual
meaning of that phrase - we must rediscover that inner, subjective sense
of wonder and exploration that we knew as small children; when we could
marvel at a spider as she spun her web, without having to make judgments
about her; when our response to taking a fall while reaching for
something beyond our grasp was to get up again and reach a little higher;
when we knew that our emotions were not reactive impulses to be
suppressed, but signals - coming from within our soul - warning us of
the hidden implications of our actions. Is it possible for us to relearn
how to observe, without being restricted by labels that suck the meaning
out of our experiences? Can we learn, once again, how to trust our own
minds - including our emotions - and to resist those who insist upon
putting chains on our thinking?

October 13, 2010

Butler Shaffer teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law. He
is the author of the newly-released In Restraint of Trade: The Business
Campaign Against Competition, 1918–1938 and of Calculated Chaos:
Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival. His latest book is
Boundaries of Order.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or
in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.