To Believe, or Not to Believe.
Is Earth the center of the universe? Are UFOs intergalactic visitors? What is God? Epistemology. In layman’s terms, this is the study of knowledge and how it comes to be. Deep, eh? You might say it’s the process or method by which someone arrives at their truth. Personal experience. Social conditioning. Traditions. Literature. School. All these factors influence someone’s ideas for what is legitimate, valid, worthy, or accurate. Most of us agree on tangible things like apples. But what about something more challenging to prove, more abstract? What about the center of the universe? How do we learn what is true for us?
Back in the day, before everyone “knew everything,” Greek philosophers debated over apples, the universe, and Gods. When they did, they reasoned with the tenets of a specific philosophy, like Cynicism, Stoicism, Skepticism, Epicureanism, or otherwise. In this way, they argued about the nature of the apple, what it’s made of, where it came from, what it will be after it’s eaten. They did the same for concepts like knowledge (itself) or the universe. While this may seem trivial, these were some of the first documented efforts of self-awareness by humans, thinking critically about who they are, where they came from, and what they believe.
The Greeks philosophized using logic or scientific methods to argue about concepts, but the term epistemology is relatively new. We’ve reached the point on our timeline where we can say that someone’s reality results from their cognitive methods, the product of their previous experiences. It’s like saying a “computer” gets its operating system and programs during the early years of life. After that, it assesses new input with the logic previously acquired. But people aren’t computers; we reason using logic and emotions to arrive at our truth.
For example, someone might say they believe in predestination because they believe in God. For them, the former is true because of the latter. Someone else might counter that predestination is an abstract notion that can’t be proven because it can’t be tested or measured. Then, they’d debate their truths. Most of us don’t sit around for hours thinking about WHY we believe something is true.
Greek philosophers attempted to evaluate specific concepts, like the universe, objectively. They debated when books and schools were scarce. Most humans were still hunters and gatherers. Guns didn’t exist. With all its “truths,” the Internet wouldn’t exist for another two thousand years. It’s no stretch to say that storytellers, clerics, and philosophers were our first mediums; they earned their credibility and acquired followers the way influencers do today. People trusted their preferred “media” sources. I like the way Plato reasons. Saint Augustine makes more sense to me. Aristotle is off his rocker. In this way, people like Socrates influenced their followers’ truth — how they saw the world.
We’ve evolved. Over time, we’ve normalized concepts like the Metric system and taxonomy to create great societies and economies that scale. Yet, we are no closer to reaching a consensus statement of truth for some of our most cherished ideas. For these, we still debate about what is good or bad, true or false, legitimate or illegitimate.
Modern media is a brutally honest reflection of humanity because it hosts all our “truths.” And, like every industry, it’s based on supply and demand. In this regard, no matter what truth you have to “sell,” there is a “buyer” for it. Unfortunately, we don’t always agree. What some see as a message of hope, others see as despair. Is the world flat? Is the sun god Ra the highest of all gods? Is there a superior race? You can find the truth you want to believe on the Internet for all these questions.
On Monday, Nov 8th, Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona used his influence to share an animated video of his likeness decapitating the head of fellow Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. By doing so, he signaled to his key audience his truth about “who” is right, bad, patriotic, and disloyal. His reward? His audience’s allegiance.
If terms like epistemology, cognition, psychological conditioning, metaphysics, justification, and neuroscience are confusing for you, then rest assured, they are for most of us. These terms get thrown around willy nilly in cognitive sciences, but they are relatively new. Most of us are still too busy with work or family to fully appreciate the differences. They all contribute to our understanding of HOW people arrive at their truth.
Here’s another new term for you, Media Literacy. Definitions vary. Here’s mine: it is a cognitive skill set that enables someone to think critically about the media they consume. Is thinking about the origin of your ideas a profound exercise for you? Imagine how a ten-year-old child feels. They’ve been immersed in media platforms for most of their life—VR platforms, apps, video games, the rest of the Internet. Today, before most children reach a state of self-awareness, they consume about eight hours of media every day, all of which influence their ideas about truth, patriotism, or otherwise.
But modern media blurs the traditional distinctions between journalism, public relations, advertising, art, sensationalism, entertainment, propaganda, education, and other forms of influence. A legitimate Media Literacy program doesn’t teach someone “what” to think; it teaches them “how” to critique the media they consume.
Currently, there is a call to “cancel” groups that use their influence for hate, division, misinformation, or otherwise. One side wants to censor Rep. Paul Gosar for his actions this week. The other side wants to ban certain books from school libraries or just omit discussions about historical racial subjugation. As a Veteran, I firmly evangelize for freedom of speech over censorship in most cases. The other side of this freedom is Media Literacy programs.
Regardless of how offensive or disgusting, our diverse opinions and beliefs are the core of our Constitutional Republic. Unfortunately, for hate groups, prejudice is part of their truth. It’s baked into their cognitive process. We each have our truth about the universe, Gods, and other abstract ideas. But our collective truth evolves, usually for the better of humanity.
Today, most of us agree that the Earth revolves around the sun, polytheism isn’t likely, and burning evil spirits out of “witches” isn’t good for society. Speaking out against these “truths” during their day would likely have gotten you killed. Ask Socrates, Galileo, or Joan of Arc how they feel about censorship of unpopular ideas. We’ve evolved, and open public discourse has been a crucial part of the process. Conversely, we collectively regress when we censor speech or fail to acknowledge past atrocities (or glamorize the people that enabled them). Private platform protocols aside, a society that dictates which truths are valid is engaged in indoctrination, not education. I’m confident that many of my fellow Veterans wouldn’t have served to further this practice.
As one of the few countries that entertain freedom of speech, we have the tremendous task of tolerating ideas that infuriate us. In some cases, there may be an immediate reaction to censor, but I argue that the long goal of the First Amendment is more important than our personal beliefs. It isn’t easy. If it were easy, every country would allow it. But with our personal rights comes our collective responsibility to educate our children on the various forms of influence and how modern media contributes to their psychological development. In essence, we are out of time. As a society, we have to become self-aware, think critically about the process by which we arrive at our collective truth.
Suppose you feel Rep. Paul Gosar’s shared video is disgusting for a sitting representative (or anyone) of our Republic. In that case, I strongly encourage you to condemn his ideas because impressionable children are always watching. If you agree with the video, you needn’t do anything; your silence is tacit approval. Regardless, we must consider that in the not too distant future, similar videos will be auto-generated to appeal to a specific audience — conservative, liberal, or otherwise. Future censorship will be trickier than it is today. Education, not controlled content, will be the key to our rational future.
Our society will always have to balance what we believe is logically sound and what we emotionally feel is true. As a Republic that reveres freedom of speech, the Internet has put us in a difficult position. Either we can embrace censorship and the polarization that comes with it or find solidarity in our First Amendment. The latter is the more complex option that will require legitimate Media Literacy programs and tolerance. The former, which dictates which ideas are valid, will end our Republic.
I’m Gilbert Ramirez, author of The Chameleon: Plot to Weaponize Bias, an alumnus of The University of Texas at Austin College of Communication. I’m a philosophical technogeek, a Media Literacy freak, and a proud Veteran. I’m out to unite diverse cultures through technology.
I go by The Chameleon on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter to evangelize Media Literacy topics: rhetoric, sociology, neurobiology, philosophy, psychology, and of course, media.