As a strong believer in the values of the Enlightenment age, the search for truth, based on rational, empirical evidence, should be at the top of my agenda. It remains so. I believe it is possible to conduct research and improve society, allowing people to live more prosperous, happier and healthier lives.
A key part of this thesis is the pursuit of what is correct, that is, the real, honest state of society. Is unemployment higher? Are more people using food banks? Have the levels of maternal mortality declined? We are reliant on objective data that is correct in order for necessary changes to be made. The first dent in this argument, I’ve realized, is whether statistics can even be correct, especially when they are trying to predict what will happen, not investigate what has happened. There is a clear distinction. This week, the Bank of England were eager to announce forecasts in the event of the UK leaving the European Union without a deal. GDP would immediately fall by 8% with house prices reducing by nearly a third. As for unemployment, well, that would rise to 7.5%. Now, these statistics may all be true. Mark Carney and his team have far more knowledge of economics and trade than I ever will. From the evidence presented, I believe leaving on World Trade Organisation terms would be a catastrophe. However, how much can these individual statistics really be trusted? Even when they are statistics commenting on what has really happened, it does all seem awfully abstract. The debate really is over whether the truth is broad, large scale information looking at the whole nation as one. Or, the truth is really looking at the small-scale individual lives of citizens. Their experience, as an individual within society, is the real truth. The whole point about truths is they were meant to be absolute. Multiple truths were a farcical, yet scary, post-modern narrative. Hence my confusion. Reading a leaked memo, it appears, in the run up to the government’s meaningful vote on the Withdrawal Agreement in a fortnight’s time, there is a new topic every day on the agenda to promote their deal. Focusing on a broad range of issues, the government presumably wish to explain why their deal is the best one, and what the consequences of a no deal would be. So, let’s take a look at the issue dominating the headlines as I write: security. The security minister Ben Wallace is to say a no deal Brexit would have a "real impact" on protecting the public, according to the BBC. There is yet no clarity on DNA and fingerprint records or the exchange of criminal records. Important though these issues are, are they likely to affect people in the real world? While these themes sound very technical and precise, in terms of affecting the ordinary voter, it seems awfully distant. The question is really how the truth is measured. Unless the proposition is that the truth doesn’t exist and is completely relative, in which case you may as well stop reading this blog, does the truth appear on the large scale or the small. Unemployment may well go up in the future, but to those in employment, it is not their version of the truth. Similarly, Gross Domestic Product, a very narrow measure of a country’s success, is unlikely to dramatically affect someone doing their weekly shop. While they may notice items have increased (or decreased) by a few pence, their lives (and therefore their version of the truth) will hardly be transformed. As I have already stated, the truth is a very important thing. Without empirical objective knowledge, lies will be able to spread quickly, that only benefit the few (to quote Jeremy Corbyn or Tony Blair, depending on your political preference) and mean society cannot improve and evolve. But it cannot be denied that varying versions of the truth are clearly present. If broad statistics have little to no impact on the lives of ordinary individuals, it is tricky to see how it can be classed as their version of the truth. I suppose this will always be the case in all elements of society. In politics, certain statistics may be revealed (while others are hidden or conveniently not mentioned) in order to further their argument. If a TV wishes to cancel a certain programme, they may highlight certain surveys or viewing figures that back up their justification for removal even if, broadly, the programme was popular. We should be able to make statistics and logical predictions about the future. Though they may be wrong, they can be revised at future time and provide a good basis for understanding what is likely to occur as a result of actions that have taken place (in or out of a government’s control). Yet it can never be fully certain, and therefore shouldn’t be presented as the absolute truth. While it is 99% certain that chaos will erupt as a result of a no-deal Brexit, and hence why it mustn't be allowed to happen, it shouldn’t be expressed as the full 100% likelihood. This does sound rather pedantic and pretentious, I know. But the truth, what is happening, what has happened in the past must be distinguished from what is to take place in the future. Sometimes, they are almost the same but can never be placed together. If we start conflating the present and accurate account of events with future speculation, even if that speculation appears astute, the meaning of truth will have been forever abandoned.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|