Yesterday I got the urge to get out of the house and relax somewhere. I’d been working hard at school and exercise all week, I’d just taken three tests in two days, and I felt I deserved a break. I decided to go to a local establishment that a lot of college students and otherwise interesting people hang out. I’d only been there once before, and so I didn’t really know the customs and expectations associated with it, but I thought I’d set up my computer, kick back, put in some headphones and get caught up on some music listening and some emailing. Alas, when I got there, there was no internet to be found. I couldn’t get a signal for the life of me, and while I initially lamented, I decided I would still take advantage of this time.
So I decided I would get some typing and some listening done. And I'm realizing I'm surrounded by smart, interesting people. Two guys were having a conversation, and the first line of it that I heard was a, "Did you just make a sexist and a homophobic comment?" The guy responded, "…dude, I'm not homophobic." How refreshing! …and how terribly, terribly interesting. Why was it more acceptable to be sexist instead of homophobic? Sexism seems to be an issue that people don't think is an issue anymore. We are not in "post-sexist America" right now. Sexism is here to stay, since women are actually so different. But this is just what's highlighted by popular culture (media): a cherry-picked version of all the evidence that's at hand.
Now I can't claim to have examined all of the relevant scientific data. I don't even claim to have a fair knowledge of any degree of breadth or depth; A lot of what I have to go on, I'll admit, has probably been cherry picked pretty well. One would say that I have not achieved "sufficient evidence" yet. I should still remain skeptical. It could easily be that the illusion of gender differences is, itself, an illusion. What's more, the little evidence I've managed to acquire in my experience doesn't even share the same method of information. I've got 3rd person observation; various percentages and graphs from different magazines; a number of empirical studies on the matter that seem to "tell it like it is", basing it on the concept of whether the hypothesis matched the data, and how well is "well enough"; and what various talking heads have to say. But the most important experience I have is my own first-hand experience. And why is that? Definitely a question for a more philosophical mind state. But I know that it has more impact than any of this other evidence, and that's even acknowledging the fallibility of a singular perspective.
Grey would say that wisdom is to have more than just that singular perspective. He said that it's like being in a maze and being able to zoom up above it and use that information to make the labrynthesque journey of life that much easier. He said it's to come closer to the ultimate objectivity that is the eye of god; unmoving, ever-conscious, and always observing. And so I like to think of myself as wise in that regard, in that if I haven't come close, I've at least tried to achieve higher perceptual ground. It's been my goal, even if I haven't made much progress.
Aristotle was quoted as saying, "All I know is that I know nothing." I'm tempted to apply this adage to the situation at hand, but only before clarifying that claim as I've been taught to. Because [that woman] says that what he really meant was, "I do not claim to know things that I do not know." I think in this case, it could even be appropriate to go so far as to say, "…that I cannot know." Because in reality, I know that I cannot know the truest version of another's perspective.
So does this apply to say, "These thoughts about gender differences are immoral beliefs because you know you cannot know, and yet you claim to know anyway"? I don't think so. I think this is where the matter of degree comes in. I do have experience, and I do feel that it is in at least some small, flawed way a description of "how it really is." This is why I do not dogmatically claim to know the truth about gender issues and to disbelieve any evidence to the contrary. For instance, I acknowledge, now more than ever due to what I've been learning in human sexuality, that the effects of hormones are very real, and that they can be generalized to an extent. (This is to approach a clinical take on the situation--"This individual is ab/normal because hir scores and tests fall within this range"--but this is where my interest and education in biochemistry fills in scientific evidence--perhaps some of the most sufficient evidence.)
But, for instance, a recent example from my recent life applies directly to this: I read in a magazine that drinking cold liquids while eating is bad for digestion, because it dilutes digestive juices, making the stomach produce more HCl; After digestion, the level is still high, contributing to stomach problems. What assumptions are being made here? Here's my best guess: "My audience is mostly people who have read this magazine, and my advice in it, and if they're going to heed my advice now, they've probably done it before. This means they've been eating their veggies, exercising, and especially drinking 64oz of water every day and chewing their food 500 times." What does this mean? The people taking this woman's advice had better know the context of her claim.
I didn't think all of this at first. I took her claim at face value, and decided to apply to it the scientific method, if only (and especially) for my own personal gain. What I found seemed to be inconclusive, if not possessing a negative correlation. When I ate without drinking, I would feel fuller, but not in a satisfied way. It seemed to me that her advice wasn't working for me.
Some would say, "Of course not!" and I almost wish I held their convictions that highly. Ignorance can sometimes be bliss. But in this case, the conviction being held is that "everybody's bodies respond differently to different experiences, treatments, and stimuli." This is another claim I can back up with personal and scientific evidence. I really want to believe that this is true, but the ramifications are great. It would imply that maybe the whole field of medical science is off-base, and that seeing my GP again would be like entering the shaman's hut to have some ritual bleeding done. I like to believe that the answers to my problems are close at hand, just a phone call away. To suggest that my body could be completely different from the "ideal average" that pharmaceutical companies operate off of is scary. It means there's much more I have to know, much more to learn.
But I like learning, and so this desire, combined with my reasons for skepticism, colored my experimentation. So who knows if science lady is right or not, especially seeing as she didn't provide any numerical data? I certainly don't. It seems possible, even likely, that she's wrong, except for the fact that I do take great comfort of being able to call a doctor when something bad happens and he'll make it all go away. Poof. And so wouldn't this make me prone to believing a supposed professional? My interpersonal communications class would suggest that the positivity bias would also play into this equation, making me believe that the nice lady would never intentionally mislead her readers.
At the same time, how do scientists figure out correlations? They probably take a sample of people with no confounding variables. This means relatively healthy people. I do not believe that this is a representative sample of the American population. I think most impartial statisticians agree that it is perhaps the majority of American citizens that have something "wrong" with them, whether it be their weight, their hearts, their reproductive organs, their brains… I think this disconnection with the actual population being studied--us-- runs as deep as the researchers themselves. Imagine how much further the reality of the situation is distorted through the fuzzy connections and conduits of mass media, word of mouth, and various political and religious institutions. By the time the crux of the matter gets to our ears, it's merely a dim shadow of truth, flickering like a star's light shooting untold miles through space and atmosphere.
So what does this all mean? That's always the core of the matter: okay, I believe so, so what do I do from here? You've read this, so that's a start. The next act is to try to live for the pursuit of wisdom, an altered perspective, a strive for sufficient evidence, a bountiful heap of skepticism. But this does not mean inaction. Skepticism is never an excuse for inaction. In fact, it's almost a rallying cry. So maybe lady is only conveying a very specific version of the truth, but it's got that glimmering point of truth to it. The next step is to establish what level of authority to grant this lady. She may be good enough to be printed, but does she have formal education in the matter? an ulterior motive? faulty information? How accurate and scientific is this magazine? Is this an issue I already feel strongly about (this statement goes on the assumption that my audience already believes in and adheres to some level of Clifford's idea of the morality of sufficient evidence, even if they don't know it by name)? All of this, I feel, ought to balance out to the point that I've come to. "There's only one way to find out for certain if this advice is applicable to my life: Test that ish out. Not only that, but get the opinion of others: namely acquaintances and medical professionals."
One also needs to keep in mind what the goal of this investigation is. It is not to prove that lady is right or wrong. It is only to prove whether or not that set of advice applies to your life. This is not the endpoint, however. Even after personal knowledge has been established, the goal should cycle back to unanswered questions found in the earlier process of skepticism: how reputable is this magazine? this author? Is this knowledge universal, or personal? In short, what is that glimmer of truth? Just because it shines on me, doesn't mean everybody feels it the same way. (Circle back to the fallibility of a singular perspective.) The goal, in essence, becomes the quest for truth and knowledge through the active act of wisdom.
So what did I end up finding? I determined that my body is still adjusting--to a new climate, a new sleep schedule, a new medication, a new exercise routine--and that these adjustments all relate to my level of hydration, which I have learned over the years (through the aforementioned process) is very important to my body. It's why I always preach to drink water whenever anything is wrong with someone. It's a belief that I've held to such a standard of sufficient evidence that I feel comfortable--even moral--recommending this faith to others. And even in this act of proselytizing for the church of biochemistry, I listen to those who say, "You know, I always thought that, but I actually function better when I'm slightly dehydrated." It's these people that really catch my attention, because they seem to know more about the matter for two apparent reasons: their conviction when expressing their belief seems to be based on some level of sufficient evidence, and the relative lack of people who strongly disbelieve the correlation between hydration and health. In a world with no zealotry, the agnostic becomes the outlier.
So, really though, what did I end up finding? Besides more questions? I found lady's advice doesn't apply to me at this period in my life. That's the only thing I know for certain. It's a certainty that isn't dogmatic. It's almost too idealistic. It's skeptical certainty.
"Philosophy is not something that only applies when thinking about philosophy. Knowledge is power always."
P.S. Part two is explaining why I believe what I do about sexuality and gender, and why I feel comfortable in the moral nature of the act of expressing these beliefs in this way to you, the reader.
No comments:
Post a Comment