Self-evidence

Self-evidence is a standard that has been applied to various ideas as being something that makes that idea somehow superior to accept without proof.  Of course, one has to buy into the idea of needing proof in the first place for this to matter, but Western society (and increasingly the whole world) operates on a largely logical positivist basis.  What I mean is that people more and more want to see the "proof".  This post may sound like I'm about to rip apart this notion.  I'm not.  A great deal of ignorance has been eliminated by healthy skepticism that demands proof, and I certainly count that as a good thing.  However, as with our other hidden assumptions, I want to make clear that there are underlying assumptions made with this demand that need to be exposed so that our thinking can be clear.

What does "self-evident" mean?  It means, basically, true because it's true.  In other words, it means something that we have no experience of not being true.  Gravity, for example, could be called self-evident.  We have no experience of something on Earth or in the universe that does not react to the force of gravity.  Thus, it could be said that the existence of gravity is self-evident. I'm not saying that we need to labor over whether to believe in gravity or not.  The point is that it is possible that there is a situation in which gravity does not apply of which we are simply unaware.

So, what's the big deal, you ask.  Well, the answer to that goes back to the concept of objectivity.  The point is this: Is it possible that gravity always applies because we believe that it always applies?  Your first reaction might be to say "Of course not!  What a silly question!".  Your justification for this outburst might be to say that you're not going to start jumping off of skyscrapers just because you decided to stop believing in gravity (and that would be quite wise of you).  The actual answer to this question is less important than that it be raised.  On a practical level, you cannot simply say to yourself, "I no longer believe in gravity.", jump off a skyscraper and levitate.  That does not mean it is strictly impossible.  It does mean, though, that you'd better not try.  The key point here is that it is possible (although we have no experience of such a thing) that there is a scenario in which gravity does not apply.  After all, we need only find one exception to the rule to potentially invalidate it.

So, what we arrive at is that our belief (i.;e., gravity always applies) may "blind" us to other possibilities if we are not careful.  How, then, can we claim to be objective?  If the experiments we design are guided by our subjective beliefs (unconscious as they may be), how is objectivity preserved?  The classical scientific answer to this quandary (as some folks have scratched the tip of this particular iceberg) is that we repeat the experiments in different times and places.  The problem, of course, with this is that what really has to be done is to repeat the experiment over and over again with people having different beliefs.  The problem is that it is not always possible to fulfill this latter requirement.  After all, you will be hard-pressed to find people not believing in gravity (even those who earnestly wish they did not).  So, we must admit to some degree of subjectivity in science (even without invoking quantum theory).

Okay, so the argument will be that someone might indeed believe that gravity does not apply but then they perform an experiment (hopefully not involving skyscrapers) and gravity remains proven.  So, the skeptic might say, the objectivity of science is borne out.  But, then, let us ask, is it not possible that this individual simply deluded him/herself into this belief?  In other words, is it not still possible that the person still unconsciously believed in gravity while consciously denying it?  I do not think it requires intense examination of human behavior to see that such a thing is indeed possible.

In the end, we must certainly say that good science strives for objectivity, but we must also acknowledge that since science is performed by people who will always have some "blind spots" in what they believe, that science is never really 100% objective.  After all, it was less than 120 years ago that he best educated scientists in the world believed in an aether for the propagation of light that they could not detect.  Einstein eventually showed that this aether was not necessary (and it still has not been detected, might I add).

Today, many well-educated scientists believe in dark matter that they cannot detect.  A few do not, and they are usually derided.  In time, which group is correct will eventually be revealed, but the point here is that both groups are operating somewhat subjectively.  So, gentle reader, beware of those who are devout in the superiority of science because of its objectivity.  They know not what they do.