Why we need more sceptics
No, this post isn't mainly about Europe. It's about an word which was usually misunderstood in the past, and has been even more distorted by being completely misused in we debate the European Union, but represents an approach which the events of the past couple of days demonstrate to be needed now more than ever.
If you asked me to nominate the most misused word in the English language, I would have to say "Sceptic."
The original sceptics were often misrepresented in ancient Greece, where the word originates, and subsequently, as being hostile to all religion. Some of them certainly were, others just as certainly were not.
But what it "sceptic" means is "seeker after knowledge" e.g. one who tries to establish the truth, rather than taking things on faith.
In other words, we do more than a little violence to the English and Greek languages of we use the expression "Euro-sceptic" to mean those who most loathe everything to do with the European Union. That term ought to mean those who have the most open minds about the EU, are prepared to accept that something which comes from Brussels could be either good or bad, and neither unthinkingly support or reject any EU treaty or proposal.
But in this day and age a willingness to think about things, and not just accept or reject them is far too rare. And the events of the past few days have proven this.
An old saying often attributed to Mark Twain is that "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Ironically this attibution itself may be wrong, but the statement itself is even more true today. A website called "Salisbury post" added
"And that was long before the Internet. Today, lies are on their third lap around the globe before truth can hit the snooze button."
One example this week was when the Department for Education had to deny a completely false rumour to the effect that teachingt of the Holocaust was to be dropped from the curriculum of British schools to avoid offending muslims. Today's Times carries a piece by the author of an article which had been misunderstood and misquoted in this way.
An even worse example was the complete misrepresentation by far too many media people who should have known better of the admittedly confused and unhelpful comments of the Archbishop of Canterbury about Sharia law.
Let me make clear that I agree wholeheartedly with the criticisms made by Sayeeda Warsi about the Archbishop's speech. A man in his position should have had the sense to realise how his comments were bound to be misunderstood and damage community cohesion.
But although Dr Rowan Williams should have realised that his comments were bound to be represented in ways which would do far more harm than good, this is no excuse for all the journalists who exacerbated that harm by seriously misquoting him in ways which were either incompetent or dishonest.
The Archbishop did not argue, as too many newspaper headlines have suggested he did, that the more barbaric and extreme forms of Sharia should be allowed in Britain. He said, in so many words, that no-one in their right mind wants this to happen.
Neither did he argue for Muslims or anyone else to have a separate legal system: in questions after his lecture he stated explicitly that "I am not talking about parallel systems" but about how the law of the land can accomodate a wider range of people with the fewest conflicts.
There are plenty of valid criticisms which can and should be made of Dr William's speech, but an even greater hornets' nest was stirred up because an admittedly silly and unclear speech was very inaccurately reported.
What this goes to show is that we should all think twice before assuming that anything we hear on the news, read in a newspaper, or read on the internet s necessarily true. Or indeed that it is false. Every day we all hear dozens of true statements and dozens of false ones. If we stop to think about which of the things we have been told are likely to fall into each category, and avoid the trap of believing what confirms our existing prejudices, we are likely to make much wiser choices in our lives.
Isn't it ironic that a group of philosophers from Ancient Greece, two and a half centuries ago, can give us advice which is so relevant to the internet age?
If you asked me to nominate the most misused word in the English language, I would have to say "Sceptic."
The original sceptics were often misrepresented in ancient Greece, where the word originates, and subsequently, as being hostile to all religion. Some of them certainly were, others just as certainly were not.
But what it "sceptic" means is "seeker after knowledge" e.g. one who tries to establish the truth, rather than taking things on faith.
In other words, we do more than a little violence to the English and Greek languages of we use the expression "Euro-sceptic" to mean those who most loathe everything to do with the European Union. That term ought to mean those who have the most open minds about the EU, are prepared to accept that something which comes from Brussels could be either good or bad, and neither unthinkingly support or reject any EU treaty or proposal.
But in this day and age a willingness to think about things, and not just accept or reject them is far too rare. And the events of the past few days have proven this.
An old saying often attributed to Mark Twain is that "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Ironically this attibution itself may be wrong, but the statement itself is even more true today. A website called "Salisbury post" added
"And that was long before the Internet. Today, lies are on their third lap around the globe before truth can hit the snooze button."
One example this week was when the Department for Education had to deny a completely false rumour to the effect that teachingt of the Holocaust was to be dropped from the curriculum of British schools to avoid offending muslims. Today's Times carries a piece by the author of an article which had been misunderstood and misquoted in this way.
An even worse example was the complete misrepresentation by far too many media people who should have known better of the admittedly confused and unhelpful comments of the Archbishop of Canterbury about Sharia law.
Let me make clear that I agree wholeheartedly with the criticisms made by Sayeeda Warsi about the Archbishop's speech. A man in his position should have had the sense to realise how his comments were bound to be misunderstood and damage community cohesion.
But although Dr Rowan Williams should have realised that his comments were bound to be represented in ways which would do far more harm than good, this is no excuse for all the journalists who exacerbated that harm by seriously misquoting him in ways which were either incompetent or dishonest.
The Archbishop did not argue, as too many newspaper headlines have suggested he did, that the more barbaric and extreme forms of Sharia should be allowed in Britain. He said, in so many words, that no-one in their right mind wants this to happen.
Neither did he argue for Muslims or anyone else to have a separate legal system: in questions after his lecture he stated explicitly that "I am not talking about parallel systems" but about how the law of the land can accomodate a wider range of people with the fewest conflicts.
There are plenty of valid criticisms which can and should be made of Dr William's speech, but an even greater hornets' nest was stirred up because an admittedly silly and unclear speech was very inaccurately reported.
What this goes to show is that we should all think twice before assuming that anything we hear on the news, read in a newspaper, or read on the internet s necessarily true. Or indeed that it is false. Every day we all hear dozens of true statements and dozens of false ones. If we stop to think about which of the things we have been told are likely to fall into each category, and avoid the trap of believing what confirms our existing prejudices, we are likely to make much wiser choices in our lives.
Isn't it ironic that a group of philosophers from Ancient Greece, two and a half centuries ago, can give us advice which is so relevant to the internet age?
Comments
I agree with your need for more sceptics. I have a particular problem with "perceived wisdom". This is really often repeated spin or indoctrination.
I have found in my work in the NHS that the perceived wisdom is often a barrier to improvement. Real change and improvement occurs when we do not accept things just because we are told that they are so. If it looks like a donkey, smells like a donkey, it probably is a donkey, even if everyone else says it is a pig.
I felt the grace notes were sufficiently well reported and I have got through lot of coverage on this. My first thought was that it might be a way of approaching the growing challenge to freedom of religious conscience form the state on such matters as Gay adoption and ...well gay this as that . You might say the question of whether sub state groups can be corralled into a Liberal dictatorship despite the clear wish of all concerned not to be .
The problem with this , and it crops up with Faith schools ,is that principle of Liberalism are universal and derive values from so called �human rights � not communitarian rights and responsibilities.Unless you are ready to say that Christianity plays a special part in this country as a religion then any freedoms extended also extend to Muslim groups which exactly what I do not want.
Take faith schools why can we not say we will have Christian ones but we will not have Islamic ones ? Have we not given up on this ridiculous multicultural myth /dream ? Those living in it certainly have. The C of E are committed to this Liberal individualism and that is why they are unable to claim a special place for themselves. This is what lies at the heart of this odd announcement IMHO and its pointles to quibble on the actual words because it is a sub textual/cultural disagreement
I like your point about a �sceptic�. We should all be sceptics without meaning that we are against everything that is new, on climate change scepticism not denial seems appropriate . On Europe I am entirely positive , optimistic and disposed to believe we are better off out of it
Hmmm.....I think I may have suffered from the Arch-bish called unclarity there ,,...sorry
There is a nice balance to be struck if we are to avoid either the trap of being too quick to believe things with no supporting evidence, or that of refusing to believe them even when the evidence is overwhelming.
It tends to be human nature to instinctively accept new information which fits with our previously-held ideas and reject what doesn't.
I suspect that most of us could benefit from just asking ourselved the question "Is this really likely to be true" more often.