What do I know?

I often find myself wishing that major issues of the day could be presented like a jury trial where both sides have the best possible representation. Let everyone present their evidence and have witnesses face cross examination. Then maybe I could be a lot more positive about some of the views I hold, or maybe I’d occasionally change my mind altogether.

As it is now, I realize I rely a lot on environmental conditioning, biases, philosophy and imperfect sources to help me reach conclusions. But unless I’m going to make researching issues a full-time job, any other approach is impractical.

Plus, in a one-person-one-vote democracy, the thoughtful expert’s ballot counts no more than that of the delusional or ignorant yahoo. Why bother to be well-informed?

I have competing interests at work here. I love being right, but I don’t want to put the time and energy into making sure I always am. Along with discerning a few facts from all the non sequiturs and nonsense, the best I can do is examine those non scientific factors that influence me. For instance, environmental conditioning as in what makes a white male from Alabama feel so differently about so many issues than a white male who was raised in Boston?

Then there are the biases. For instance, I think the vast majority of people who comprise MoveOn.org are morons. (Maybe I’ll start referring to them as MorOn.org, heh, heh). Put Rosie O'Donnell on one side of an issue, and I'll reflexively take the other side. I feel I have valid reasons for this, but as the saying goes, “Even a broken clock is right twice a day.” (And when some of those people talk, you can just see the flashing digital 12:00 in their eyes.)

My philosophical views were beginning to gel in my mid-teens. By 11th grade in a class discussion of current events, I was questioning why there should be price supports for farmers and not storekeepers? (I said --- and still say --- there should be no price supports for either.) But for the past 30 years, most of my effort has gone into defending and asserting my libertarian-free market philosophy. I’ve made my choice and I’m staying loyal to my “team.”

Then there is the issue of sources. The media IS biased, but the response as been to combat that with more media sources that are biased in the other direction. I really can’t trust anyone to give me the “truth.” It’s probably not even anyone’s fault. Reporters, documentary makers, bloggers, talk show hosts … they are like me --- operating with the same baggage. Hopefully they have a few more facts but how can I be sure? Besides, knowing some of the facts can be worse than knowing none.

All of this is why I like the adversarial approach. You have expert versus expert and trial court witnesses can’t spin their answers without being challenged by the other side’s attorney. If you’re sitting on the jury, there is no media filter telling you what you just heard or what you should think is important. There is no Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh. Even “mom and dad” are out of the picture. It’s all just facts and testimony to be evaluated under tight scrutiny.

That would let me reach some conclusions without a reasonable doubt.