(4-minute read)

(From previous post): It’s just a stick. But we couldn’t tell our body or brain that when we first encountered it. No. That was taken care for us by one of those instincts handed down to us. In this case, one of those instincts that really makes it difficult to be hard on ourselves. After all, it could have just as easily been a snake.

So, we are left alive for another day to fight those “anaconda” tree branches.

The perceived danger seemed real enough though. The same fight or flight instinct that keeps us safe can also be triggered by perceived threats. This can cause us anxiety and lead to moments of making bad choices. It comes in handy when fighting real and perceived snakes. Still, how do we handle more complex decisions when we need to decide fact from fiction?

The Critical Component To An Authentic Life

“Inside all of us is the desire to know.”

Aristotle

After the death of Plato, Aristotle started his own school called the Lyceum. There he taught philosophy in three phases. The phases were logic, the natural world, and practical philosophy. For all intents and purposes, practical philosophy was ethics and politics. They were taught in that order.

For Aristotle logic was nothing more than knowing the world and how the things in it relate to one another. He developed a formula called a “syllogism” to teach logic. It is a form of deductive reasoning used to draw a conclusion that something was true.

It went something like this:

It generally started with two minor premises that, when put together, concluded with an absolute major premise. In the above example we see it almost like a mathematical equation. All men are mortal (True, we all eventually die). Socrates is a man (True). If that is also true, then Socrates is mortal. It stands to reason because he was not a god or any other type of being.

This was the first time in recorded history we have attempts of logic. We strive to make a concerted effort to establish truths about the world in which we lived. We also tried to preserve these truths. If the minor premises are true then the major premise, the logical conclusion, was undeniably true.

The survival instinct causes us to distinguish fact from fiction. Our goal is to separate truth from bullshit. We crave conclusions that rest on solid and undeniable truths. We personally want this for ourselves and for our society. Why? Because it helps us to build objective truths based on evidence and not assumptions, biases, or opinions.

These established and agreed upon truths promote trust among the members of a community.

But as stated in an earlier article, this can often be difficult. It’s easier to make judgments based on assumptions, opinions, and biases. And sometimes we get lazy.

Evaluating arguments based on facts is more challenging. Consider that we are hardwired to make snap judgments. These judgments are readily available. They can be equally right or wrong (the “tiger” or the “snake stick”).

If we are only going to rely on snap judgments, feelings, or intuitions we are NOT using logical reasoning skills.

There was an exercise I used in classes in order to prove this point.

While exploring the differences between assumptions, biases, and opinions, I would use a current issue topic. Usually, they would be something ripped from the daily headlines, offering an easy for or against argument. College students are eager to offer opinions on these topics.

A topic was chosen and, as so often is the case, one of the most outgoing students initiated the proceedings.

The student offered their opinion. I mirrored it back to them. They then acknowledged that the understanding was correct. Then came my question.

“Why do you think that?”

They might have to think about it for a moment. Their answers were usually more personal. They mined for a deeper meaning. they gave an answer, I mirrored back, followed with:

“Yes. But why do you think that?”

Gentle laughter from classmates.

More struggle, deeper answer, another why question, sometimes with a different emphasis, more laughter, another answer, another “yes, but…”

This usually went on until one of two things happened. The student either ran out of why answers or confessed that is what their family member, friend, church, told them.

Another student would present their argument, either for or against. This process repeated. It continued.

Eventually the point of the exercise was made clear. 

• We often take for granted our opinions, not knowing if we have ever really thought about why we have them in the first place
• That, sometimes, those very opinions are not our own opinions
• That it is often difficult to fully know and confidently show why we think the way we do 
• That those same opinions could not possibly define who we truly are

To determine what is fact from fiction we have to care enough about wanting to know the truth. At the same time we want to be open to the possibility of change should further facts be revealed. This is because truth is based on fact and not fiction.

Aristotle taught his students about rhetoric and persuasion. He emphasized that making arguments to convey any truth requires more than just quoting authorities. In other words, to know and convey truth, one must understand why the particular truth is true through reasoning. It should not be based solely on what you “feel” or what others have said about the subject.

This is an important distinction to make. Once again, we need to invest time reasoning to understand why it is true or why it is not true.

The desire to know what is and isn’t real is inside all of us. It is so strong we will often make a rash decision based on very little evidence (like the snake stick). The instinct that kept our ancestors safe and alive can now lead us to become lazy in our reasoning. It can also make us merely curious at best should we not want to put the effort in.

In the next article, we will examine what it takes. We aim to substitute the laziness for a more vigorous approach to reasoning.

You’ll be surprised to learn how easy it is.

Read Pt. 4 of Decoding Lies