One of those "synergy" days when it seems as if everything I'm reading is multiple views of the same topic. I just finished finally reading the book version of Burke's "The Day the Universe Changed", where universe-changing depended on *many* proud people admitting previous error, so it was always a long fight for a new truth to be established.
Same day, I read it was 4 years since Anthony Fauci demonization started, and it was much earlier than I remembered, right after he corrected Trump even once on something. Later, he was beat up for changing his mind about masks - admitting they'd been wrong to not recommend them, doing a 180. But the demonization started months earlier. The entire Tony Fauci "controversy" was just beating up expertise itself, fighting against the very notion of a solid truth. NB: Fauci's admission of error was taken as a huge strike AGAINST him by the GOP.
Thing was, my jaw dropped at the 2nd-last paragraph in Burke's book, the big sum-up about the negotiations and fights between science vs myth, which always *compete* to provide humans with a sense of understanding and control. Having noted that we have structures that *try* to open up our prejudices and look at new facts on equal footing with old - academia, journalism - toward a "relativist" approach where no absolute truth is claimed... he suddenly says, in 1985:
"A relativist approach might well use the new electronic data systems to provide a structure unlike any that which has gone before."
And here were are, now arguing what's myth and what's truth in endless online discussions that drive, -and push around- academia, journalism, and politics alike!
While finding it difficult to admit error is undoubtedly a part of being human, I suspect that it has become even more difficult in the current climate as norms of what is acceptable have changed. On the one hand, it seems as if statements and actions of politicians which would have demanded retraction, apology or accountability 20 years ago now can be ignored or ridden through without consequence. Sometimes, the breaking of old norms becomes a value to be exalted. On the other hand, the smallest mis-statement or use of an inappropriate word seems to allow for the world to dump on someone incessantly and aggressively. Moreover, while one person may take pride in correcting their past conclusion as facts or their analysis changes, I suspect there is added fear in doing so now as their ‘team’ on that issue will come down on them like a ton of bricks for leaving or betraying the fold.
Having grown up in a Germanic environment I learned early to be right while proving others to be wrong. As a consequence there were enormous efforts to find reasons for being right in the face of having made mistakes - being wrong. I took me many years to change course, and still today (80) I catch myself to relapse.
Such a good article. There seems to be no—at least very little—space for admitting an error in a previous held point of view. At the same time there are 180 degree turnabouts all the time that not accompanied by any admission of earlier fault. Trump on TickTok, Trump on Christianity, the Bible and personal morality in general. His genius, however, seems to be the way he has convinced so many that self-interest drives all politics and he is the only one that is honest in that regard. That Trump is an exemplar of this ‘way of being’ is not the biggest threat to US democracy. The bigger threat is that this instrumentalist, means-justify-ends, and all ends are really just self-interest world view absolutely dominates the oligarchs that control tech and finance. Some are a lot more controlled and ‘politic’ than an Elon Musk. Warren Buffett will say “our class is winning” and sound like he regrets it. Jamie Dimon can say things that seem to come from a place beyond the interests of the bank, Sam Altman says he is interested in humanity…but the organizations they lead are driven by the inexorable calculus of heedless, often ‘headless’ self interest.
People need better hobbies than social media. Blocking annoying people is healthy. Read the good stuff once or twice a week and turn it off and keep your phone away from you most of the time.
One of those "synergy" days when it seems as if everything I'm reading is multiple views of the same topic. I just finished finally reading the book version of Burke's "The Day the Universe Changed", where universe-changing depended on *many* proud people admitting previous error, so it was always a long fight for a new truth to be established.
Same day, I read it was 4 years since Anthony Fauci demonization started, and it was much earlier than I remembered, right after he corrected Trump even once on something. Later, he was beat up for changing his mind about masks - admitting they'd been wrong to not recommend them, doing a 180. But the demonization started months earlier. The entire Tony Fauci "controversy" was just beating up expertise itself, fighting against the very notion of a solid truth. NB: Fauci's admission of error was taken as a huge strike AGAINST him by the GOP.
Thing was, my jaw dropped at the 2nd-last paragraph in Burke's book, the big sum-up about the negotiations and fights between science vs myth, which always *compete* to provide humans with a sense of understanding and control. Having noted that we have structures that *try* to open up our prejudices and look at new facts on equal footing with old - academia, journalism - toward a "relativist" approach where no absolute truth is claimed... he suddenly says, in 1985:
"A relativist approach might well use the new electronic data systems to provide a structure unlike any that which has gone before."
And here were are, now arguing what's myth and what's truth in endless online discussions that drive, -and push around- academia, journalism, and politics alike!
Smart boy, that James Burke. Forty years ago.
While finding it difficult to admit error is undoubtedly a part of being human, I suspect that it has become even more difficult in the current climate as norms of what is acceptable have changed. On the one hand, it seems as if statements and actions of politicians which would have demanded retraction, apology or accountability 20 years ago now can be ignored or ridden through without consequence. Sometimes, the breaking of old norms becomes a value to be exalted. On the other hand, the smallest mis-statement or use of an inappropriate word seems to allow for the world to dump on someone incessantly and aggressively. Moreover, while one person may take pride in correcting their past conclusion as facts or their analysis changes, I suspect there is added fear in doing so now as their ‘team’ on that issue will come down on them like a ton of bricks for leaving or betraying the fold.
Having grown up in a Germanic environment I learned early to be right while proving others to be wrong. As a consequence there were enormous efforts to find reasons for being right in the face of having made mistakes - being wrong. I took me many years to change course, and still today (80) I catch myself to relapse.
I like the overall message of your article, well put. At the same time, Claudine Gay’s copy-pasting (sorry, unreferenced citation) was way more serious than originally assumed. See in detail: https://freebeacon.com/campus/this-is-definitely-plagiarism-harvard-university-president-claudine-gay-copied-entire-paragraphs-from-others-academic-work-and-claimed-them-as-her-own/
Well , that was refreshing, long winded comments notwithstanding. Thanks for doing what you do.
My grandpa said, "Never mud-wrestle with a pig. You both get filthy but the pig loves it."
Dan, your article reminds me of some of the things that Michael Jorden says about failing, admitting to and learning from your mistakes.
Such a good article. There seems to be no—at least very little—space for admitting an error in a previous held point of view. At the same time there are 180 degree turnabouts all the time that not accompanied by any admission of earlier fault. Trump on TickTok, Trump on Christianity, the Bible and personal morality in general. His genius, however, seems to be the way he has convinced so many that self-interest drives all politics and he is the only one that is honest in that regard. That Trump is an exemplar of this ‘way of being’ is not the biggest threat to US democracy. The bigger threat is that this instrumentalist, means-justify-ends, and all ends are really just self-interest world view absolutely dominates the oligarchs that control tech and finance. Some are a lot more controlled and ‘politic’ than an Elon Musk. Warren Buffett will say “our class is winning” and sound like he regrets it. Jamie Dimon can say things that seem to come from a place beyond the interests of the bank, Sam Altman says he is interested in humanity…but the organizations they lead are driven by the inexorable calculus of heedless, often ‘headless’ self interest.
Behold! This was well-written. Thank you for sharing
People need better hobbies than social media. Blocking annoying people is healthy. Read the good stuff once or twice a week and turn it off and keep your phone away from you most of the time.