THE REAL PURSUIT OF KNOWLEDGE
THE REAL PURSUIT OF KNOWLEDGE SHOULD CONCENTRATE ON RIGHT OR WRONG RATHER THAN RIGHT OR LEFT
by
Ken Eliasberg
Most political discussions seem to center on right or left. I think that you can gain great insight into politics, in general, and a useful political lexicon, in particular by concentrating on not what’s right or left, but what’s right or wrong. In the final analysis it is a search for the truth, which, admittedly, can be illusive that should concern us. Moreover, it may take very different forms to different people, depending on the lens through which they view life. But, as the professor knows, or should know, education is the disinterested pursuit of knowledge. That is knowledge, untainted by either politics or any form of personal bias. Unfortunately, as I have previously pointed out at great length (to the consternation, I’m sure, of many of my critics), the social studies departments of most of our institutions of higher learning have long since abandoned that as a goal in favor of left-wing indoctrination.
That said, let me make a suggestion with respect to what I consider a desirable and useful approach to analyzing and evaluating an op ed piece – at least for those readers who want to come away with something more than either support for a pre-existing bias or a blind and senseless hostility towards the author of a piece that is incompatible with such bias. First, and foremost, do not take anything that any author says as the gospel – his thoughts should serve as no more than a point of departure - a mere first step on your way to the truth. Thereafter, your evaluation should depend on (1) facts, (2) logic, (3) common sense, and (4) the degree to which the piece comports with some semblance of reality. Then, you are free to apply your bias and put the column in any sort of perspective that fits easily into your comfort zone.
Facts.- Facts are, if not everything, at least the only thing when it comes to launching your inquiry. First of all, are the facts there – that is, has the author included all of the relevant facts? If he has omitted any, has he adequately explained their absence? Has he presented them in a reasonably fair manner, even after discounting for his own personal views? Has he given you enough of them for you to, not only understand what his position is, but enough for you to arrive at your own position? In short, without the pertinent facts, there is no place for you to go
Logic.- Is the author’s position logical – has he presented them in a syllogistic manner that allows you to follow his reasoning, i.e. has he offered up a major premise, and a minor premise from which his conclusion locgically follows? Reasoning is everything, and our current dialogue – based on the degree to which we have become polarized (paralyzed?) – has almost abandoned reason entirely.
Common Sense.- It is certainly possible to be theoretically correct but practically way out of whack. Why? Because life takes place in the real world and not in the class room, and, on occasion, the knowledge emanating from each source cannot be reconciled. Consequently, any argument or proposal should be evaluated in light of the manner in which it can be reconciled with reality.
Reality.- Here’s where the train occasionally leaves the tracks; one’s view of reality - i.e. his biases – prevents him from absorbing the material in a manner that can be reconciled with his predisposition with respect to such matters. For example, if the author is attacking a current position, does he offer one that is a suitable alternative, or is he just venting, i.e. if he thinks something is wrong or not working, does he tell you what’s right and demonstrate how it might work? Does his position make sense in light of past experience, i.e. if he is defending a program, does its operational history justify the author’s defense of the program, or is he just offering up a solution that recommends more money be contributed to a program that is failing and no one has taken the trouble to ascertain why it is failing (a standard approach of the left – just throw good money (yours) after bad (and then accusing you of bigotry if you disagree with his suggested approach). In short, is his criticism reasonable and grounded in reality, or is he just passing along his unsubstantiated biases.
Then, at this point, assuming you are one who really wants to know what’s going on, your search begins. And there is so much information available to help you advance your understanding of a given matter. There is this vast reservoir of information, which, thanks to the internet, can be brought right into your house, thereby greatly simplifying your search. It is really an anomaly to me that, at a time when there is so much information out there, there is so little knowledge. Do you want to know the truth.? You should, the stakes today are just too high to mindlessly indulge your ignorance. You may not want to know the truth, but, sooner or later, it has a strange way of revealing itself to you. For your sake and that of your kids, make it sooner.
Again, I don’t recommend taking anyone’s word – including mine -as the final word; our job is to open your mind, not to lend support to a mind that is already closed. In this regard, I try to point you to additional authorites – scholars and columnists whose command of the subject has my respect - and these citations typically lengthen my column for which I am constantly admonished by the Examiner; I am deeply grateful for the Examiner’s indulgence in this regard (the community is fortunate to have a newspaper who provides this kind of latitude to its columnists).
It has been suggested that the Examiner has possibly tilted to the right, thereby creating an imbalance. To which I respond that my efforts, and those of many on the right over the last dozen or so years, have not been to create an imbalance; on the contrary my intent has always been to restore a balance (at least in terms of communication) that was upset by the Woodstock generation and moved dangerously to the left over the ensuing 30 or so years. What I mean by “in terms of communication” is that, while the country has remained center to right, those dealing with communication – i.e. the information industry, e.g. the Academy, the mainstream media, and the entertainment industry – have moved from the far left to the dangerously far or radical left. In short, the imbalance in this country is not between right and left; it is between the mainstream of the country (which is center right) and the communication vehicles (which are radical left). That is the country is balanced; the media vehicles are not, and that’s what I am here to do – to restore some balance in communication by counteracting the extreme forces on the left.
In the first year of law school, some professor is bound to pass along that old bit of advice: IF YOU’VE GOT THE FACTS ON YOUR SIDE, POUND ON THE FACTS – IF YOU’VE GOT THE LAW ON YOUR SIDE, POUND ON THE LAW – IF YOU’VE GOT NOTHING ON YOUR SIDE, POUND ON THE TABLE. The left has been doing nothing but table-pounding for the better part of 40 years. If you’re looking for solutions from the left, you will look in vain.