 “There lives more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds.” - Alfred, Lord Tennyson Questions aren’t welcome to those in authority. Churches and totalitarian regimes have imprisoned or killed people who voice honest doubts. My sympathies are largely with the questioners, who challenge blind obedience and inspire fresh discoveries. The past year has me wondering, is there a point when questioning should stop? The temptation is to say yes, stop when the questions turn dangerous. But danger has always been the excuse for burning heretics and cracking down on dissidents. How is danger to public health or trust in elections so different from danger to eternal salvation or national survival in time of crisis? Why do unending questions bother me in some cases and not others? The relevant distinction, to me, is between questions in pursuit of truth and pseudo-questions to hold truth at bay. My sympathy is for questioners motivated by curiosity and a search for answers, questioners open to possibility and fresh insights. I have none for those who ask, “Isn’t the earth really flat?” again and again, indifferent to evidence. Who promote public distrust, then use that distrust to call the round earth hypothesis an open question. Who will insist the question remains open until someone proves the earth is flat. Questioners in search of answers have my sympathy, whether or not I share their honest doubt. Dishonest doubters are a different matter. They disguise denial as uncertainty and immovable stances as questions, simply because they don’t like the answers. Image: "Why does the ice float?” scientist Michael Faraday asked in one of his Christmas lectures.
6 Comments
Dennis M Doren
10/4/2021 08:18:45 am
Very nice differentiation. "Dishonest doubters" is a fine phrase, showing the purpose of expressing doubt is either to maintain an existing belief or to manipulate others. I had been thinking of the proper line as when people want others to prove something does not exist (e.g., fraud in an election), as that is virtually always an impossible task. (Prove there are no pink elephants...) I like your description of dishonest doubters as more inclusive of expressed doubts that are themselves quite doubtful. 10/5/2021 07:10:29 am
Good point. The argument that something might exist, so long as no one has proved it doesn't, is hard to refute. An old family joke involved a household device to keep tigers away. "But there aren't any tigers around here." "See, it works."
Pat Groenewold
10/4/2021 10:19:16 am
I have been blessed/plagued with an unending curiosity all my life. I am a question asker -- enough so that I can be very irritating sometimes, just ask my spouse. I share respect for questioners in search of answers. However, I have too often seen questions used to manipulate or denigrate others. Questions, like all words can be tools or weapons, depending on the intent of the user. We have seen way too much words as weapons in recent times. 10/5/2021 07:16:43 am
I love and share (and admire) that genuine curiosity. It's a large part of what motivates and energizes me. Unlike the fake curiosity used to denigrate others, I find it respectful to acknowledge how much I don't know about someone until they tell me - rather than falling into stereotypes and assumptions. 10/5/2021 07:04:51 am
It's true that "established science" can be challenged legitimately, but only by new findings or perspectives, and with a willingness to follow the evidence. Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI'm a historian who writes novels and literary nonfiction. My home base is Madison, Wisconsin.
|
RSS Feed