Reality isn't always perception, part 3

Part 1 gave context for the human trait of perception dictating reality, part 2 gave an example, i.e., climate change. Part 3 takes the rationale to a logical conclusion.

Realists can be wrong

In view of the reality that realists can err, hard core liberals and conservatives would generally be inclined to say or think something like - "Aha, I knew I was right, the minority realists can be wrong and we should have done whatever my ideology told me to do in the first place. And, a pox on the science, facts and the idiot political opposition."

That's where political and/or religious ideology blinds ideologues and that's why they tend to fail in politics over time. How so? Ideologues can be wrong too, despite their vehement denials to the contrary. Ideologues know they are right, regardless of reality. Sometimes they are right, but over time they will be wrong more often than not.

The assumption: That assumes our ability to see reality through science, engineering, logic and true facts is, on balance, a better source for political guidance than reliance on raw ideology. People will consciously or unconsciously decide about that and then accept or reject the assumption. Accepting or rejecting the assumption has ramifications. Accepting it leads to success. Rejection doesn't.

The consequence: Doing politics based on reality takes guts because you might sometimes be wrong. Acting on "political principles" is easy and comfortable because you know you are always right, even when if overwhelming evidence says you are dead wrong.

When the ideologue fails

When an ideologue's principled policies crash and burn the ideologue can maybe see the failure. Maybe not. If failure is acknowledged, the typical ideologue will blame the opposition for his/her own ideology's failure, because that too accords with the ideology. That's the real and tangible evil of infallible, fervent belief in hard core ideology.

The Esmeralda - Chilean navy July 2011
Does blind hard core ideology exist?

This isn't any endorsement or criticism of the policy, but listen to the hard core ideologue Grover Norquist (at 5:15 - 6:20 of the video clip). He recently opined that he would rather see his grandmother eaten alive by fire ants than acquiesce in a tax increase. That's honest opinion spoken by a true believer. He sincerely meant what he said - granny gets eaten by bugs before a tax increase is acceptable.


Although he may be an unusual outlier, Mr. Norquist knows he cannot be wrong about his perception on this issue. For most people with strongly held beliefs grounded in ideology, unspun facts and solid logical counterpoints are irrelevant. How persuasive are contradictory facts or science for hard core ideologues inclined to believe or disbelieve that climate change, tax policy or anything else that contradicts their perception is a problem? 

Unless this is mistaken, public education isn't there to teach ideology. It is there to teach independent logical thinking and facts, including science. Political parties and church is where one gets ideology and your thinking done for you. And, if unspun truth flowing from education isn't good enough for ideologues, then why should they support it, especially if it undermines their 'infallible' beliefs? Since climate change skeptics deny what a large majority of opinion in this science is telling us, it would appear that skeptics also deny the value or veracity of the science itself, except skeptical minority opinion.

One can easily argue that a lot of political failure flows from the tendency of hard core liberals and conservatives to let comfortable perception to trump uncomfortable reality. It makes sense to be wrong for the rights reasons than right for the wrong reasons. In the long run, that approach to politics will lead to significantly more success than what we get now. If that is true, one should therefore generally trust reality and reject ideology.

Ignore education?

However, if it is true that we cannot trust science, engineering and logic, then why do we spend so much on public and higher education? Why don't we limit wasting our precious resource? Why not just cut way back on public schools and publicly funded universities?

On the one hand skeptics reject what climate science tells them when it doesn't fit their ideology. On the other, they accept it if it does fit the ideology. But that makes no sense because the tools, analytic methods and data sets that scientists on both sides of the debate use are essentially the same. The tools, analysis and data just happens to lead different scientists to different conclusions, a majority on one side and a small miniority on the other.

How do you define "truth" or "reality"?

Given a dispute like this among technical experts about a complex technical issue, how is a lay person to decide? Go with what is comfortable or go with the "truth" or reality as best we can see it, i.e., majority scientific opinion. But if one denies that truth can be defined that way for a technical matter like climate science, then how is one supposed to define or arrive at "truth"? Is truth whatever fits a chosen political or religious ideology? If not that, then what else is it that defines truth for issues or debates grounded in science?

Science isn't religion

This doesn't apply to religious beliefs. Religion is beyond science and a matter of personal faith or philosophy. There, one can choose to believe or have faith in whatever one wants. Religious beliefs, e.g., a two cell human embryo has a soul, cannot be tested by science and are thus a matter of personal faith. However, a rational approach of some sort should apply to politics. Politics isn't a matter of blind belief or pure Grover Norquist type faith in certain things or all things. Politics isn't religion, especially in a secular democracy grounded in a secular constitution. Politics is a soft science with part of the softness flowing from human tendencies to be irrational or emotional instead of logical.

Heroes & patriots

Our politics is polarized and dominated by hard core ideology. That tends to close minds to contradictory facts and argument.* Good ideas and unspun facts don't get a fair hearing because they threaten accepted ideology and preconceptions, true or false. In all the chaos, smoke and mirrors, the real patriots and heroes are realists and pragmatists willing and trying to face facts, pleasant or not. Hard core ideologues are something else.

* Closed minded doesn't mean stupid. It only refers to people where perception tends to trump contradictory reality.

Even "non-science" political issues like debates over the proper size and scope of government can be far more grounded in reality than they usually are. There is relevant science to be applied even there, i.e., unspun modern analytical history. For that particular issue, reality should be based on, e.g., unspun historical facts and an honest unspun assessment of our modern condition. Debates like that tend to be heavily spun and polluted with personal ideology. That leaves people with a feeble grasp of true reality, at best. That's not at all helpful. Spun reality will likely lead to political failure.

Who is in charge?

Like it or not, it is up to regular voters to try to see reality for what it is and try to act intelligently. Ideology doesn't help. Politicians and most special interests aren't going to help either. They use our weaknesses against us - they flog us mercilessly with their infallible ideology. Non-voters can't help either - they don't vote and don't count. Average voters have to face reality alone even if it is uncomfortable. Average voters are in change and they need to intelligently assert that authority. If they fail, we all fail.

Average voters have to try to see reality even if special interests are trying as hard as they can by spending hundreds of millions on sophisticated propaganda or lies to deceive, distract and discourage it. Special interests include, first and formost, the Democratic and Republican parties. Anything less on our part gets us more failure.