Most of us think we know what is true. We hold opinions, beliefs and convictions that feel self-evident. But what if many of the things we call truth are actually stories that we tell ourselves?
In this video, I explore the difference between truth, fact, belief and narrative. I argue that our identities are shaped by stories about nationality, faith, politics, family, culture and experience. Those stories help us make sense of the world, but they can also persuade us that our beliefs are facts when they are not.
I explain why certainty can be dangerous, why context matters more than we often admit, and why understanding other people's narratives is essential if we want to change minds, reduce conflict and create a more caring society.
This is a video about humility, doubt, critical thinking and the importance of recognising uncertainty in a world where everyone claims to know the truth.
Do facts exist? How much of what we believe is actually true? And how should we respond when other people see the world very differently from us? These are big questions. And how do we work out the answers?
This is the audio version:
The Debate Ammunition for this video is available here.
This is the transcript:
What is truth? That is a profoundly important question because most of the time, a lot of us think we know what is true, and much of what we think is true is not. Many supposed truths are actually beliefs, and we often confuse beliefs with facts. Understanding the distinction really matters, and that's what this video is all about.
Beliefs are important. They shape our understanding. There's nothing wrong with having beliefs. Some beliefs support our well-being. Others can cause harm. We need to be able to tell the difference. But we all have beliefs, and we always will. They make sense of our reality, and we can't do without them.
We understand realities through narratives. We make sense of our lives through stories. Stories tell us who we are. They shape our identity. They influence how we see the world. They help define what we think is true.
So identity is built from stories. Stories tell us what our gender, whatever it is, means. They create nationality and identity, and they shape faith, which many of us inherit from our parents as a shared intergenerational story, and that religion can then shape our understanding of the world. These narratives become a part of us. They become our truth.
And this is also true in politics and the media. They not only form their own view of the truth, but they shape ours as well.
Political parties tell stories about themselves. We accept some of those stories. We reject others. That's what politics is all about.
And newspapers also promote particular narratives. We once trusted the BBC because it seemed unbiased. Now we have our doubts.
All of these influences help define our truth or lack of it, and then our suspicions, and that also matters.
Doing so, truth and belief are often mixed together.
We may believe that more state intervention is essential and beneficial. Others may strongly disagree. Each side thinks the other is wrong; beliefs can feel like fact to us. That does not make them real.
The Ipswich Town test explains this.
I, quite irrationally, believe that Ipswich Town is the best football club in England. The evidence does not always support that belief, although this season has helped sustain it. So deep down, despite the recent evidence, I know my belief is not quite true. It's a measure of hope over expectation. It's a measure of who I think I am. I was born and brought up in Ipswich, and that part of it remains within me and will do forever. But it is a belief and not a fact that Ipswich Town is the best football club in England, although I'll argue with you about it if you want me to.
The fact is, this is what gives rise to so many of our disagreements, and even moral absolutes have exceptions. We say some principles are absolute. Not killing people seems to be one example, and yet almost everybody knows of a reason why, on occasion, we must break this rule, even if we don't do so personally.
Context alters our judgment. Certainty is often less certain than we think it is.
Even so, we persist in thinking facts do exist. My father had a simple story about this, and he told it to me when I was quite young, and it was in the context of newspapers with which I was fascinated. He said there were only two things in any newspaper that were facts. The first was the date, and the second was the sports results. And he said that was vital because gambling depended upon it. Everything else, he said, should be doubted about what was in that newspaper, and I think he was right. And the lesson was that I should think critically. I should appraise what they said, and I should decide what was true as far as I was concerned.
And that is true even with those things like facts. I said the date was right. And let's be clear. I can state as a fact that I was born on 21st March, 1958. That is true, but only within our current date convention. It is a fact within the framework that we have agreed to measure dates; otherwise, it's nonsense.
So even facts depend upon agreed definitions, and they aren't always agreed. So facts still require context. And what this means is that most of life is, in fact, about interpretation.
Everything about me since the time of my birth is open to interpretation. My memory can be unreliable. My twin brother says so. And recall can definitely be incomplete. So understanding changes over time; that is part of being alive.
My point is this: we are often too certain. I'm sometimes too certain myself. I know that. I'm guilty of what I'm saying we should do, so I'm trying to teach myself at this moment. It's easy to hold rigid beliefs or seem sure and to overstate our conclusions, which might be conditional, provisional, or simply uncertain because the facts aren't yet established. In that case, certainty can become a barrier, when humility and understanding is often required.
We need to accept a world in which uncertainty and misunderstanding exist, and our education should be emphasising this and not supposed facts.
The example of Reform I think illustrates this. I've been told by several people very recently, that they do not think that everyone in Reform is racist. They're right, but then they go on to say that every racist is in Reform. But even that claim is not true. We know it isn't. Reform now attracts some openly racist people as well, and racists can be found elsewhere, too, in all political parties, and I stress that point, and none. We know that's true, so let's not pretend otherwise. Reform might have some racists in its ranks, but so are they everywhere.
So, we must embrace something uncomfortable and not convenient when we claim a supposed truth. The reality is, in the case of racism, it's a pervasive problem that we need to tackle. It's not just in existence on the far right, although it seems more prevalent there. And we should be talking about prevalence, not facts.
In that case, we also need to do something else, and that is we need to understand other people's narratives.
We need to know how people reach their views.
We need to understand their experiences.
We need to understand their identities.
People often jump straight to conclusions, but understanding and even doubt must come before persuasion.
The fact is, if facts there are, that a politics of care requires that understanding. We must engage with uncomfortable views. We must seek ways to move beyond them by understanding the narratives that are behind them. That process can be difficult, but it is necessary if society is to change.
I think that's worth doing, and I think the effort is worth making. Do you? There's a poll down below. Let us have your views. Please share this video and do like it, if that's what you do. And if you want to buy Tom and me coffee, we'd be very grateful. There's a link down below.
Poll
Loading ...
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] The video which this Debate Ammunition supports is available here. […]
This is a bit of a brain dump….
I’ve felt this for a long time.
Humans don’t exist in a vacuum, our brains don’t exist in a jar. We, I guess are like an executive toy, one ball moving hits another ball thats stationary, which then causes that to move.
People don’t act for no reason. Cause and effect.
It’s understanding the reasoning behind ones actions, aka, EMPATHY. We don’t have to agree with someone else, but having understanding and therefore empathy towards them helps it be more accepting.
If another driver cuts me up angrily while I am happily driving along to my music, I can make a snap judgement, call him an expletive, react by tail gating, make a judgement about how such a horrible person he is. But if we pulled over and I said are you ok? He may turn round and say, my child has just died. I think my reaction towards him would verge on the polar opposite.
There is so much pain and anger in the world now, because most people feel pushed around and under stress. This takes away any ability to have empathy and understanding towards others, which in turn breeds more anger and pain. It’s a vicious circle.
Those in power love it, they whip us up, cause in fighting, while they quietly sneak away and continue pulling the levers.
Facts are sterile things that only come to life when meaning is applied and meaning is relational. Our felt existence is the real life we live as we encounter the physical world and the life in it and the wonder is really that we find as much to agree on as we do!
Uncertainty needs to be cultivated – rescued even, from the bad press it has had for centuries. Not the uncertainty that dithers and stifles action but the one that steps forward even while some doubt exists. It’s the nimble guerilla force that has a target but recognises that in unfamiliar territory plans will have to be amended to achieve that aim as the unexpected materialises. Contrast this to the macho certainty that, tank-like, destroys everything in its path to achieve a goal – often the goal itself.
Consensus has much to recommend it over voting. It acknowledges the infinitely variable level of confidence in a proposed measure and that where a decision is agreed on it does not confer the status of correctness but that of a considered punt. Together with the ability to recognise when a punt has not worked a new way to achieve the desired aim can be agreed and implemented on the same terms. Contrast this with the victorious 51% of voting systems and the zero sum nature of the exercise, the ‘reputation’ staked on a belief that is touted as fact, the erosion of trust.
Time to ditch the conflictual politics of old and start living in the real world of listening, being curious and taking a punt.
T. A. R. A!
Might this relevant and interesting article indicate the value of, and need for, “Spectrum Thinking” when considering “truths” and other multifaceted matters?
My advice on introducing new ideas is never tell the people what a theory is – it just makes them suspicious and worry about change; just do it and see how you get on. Walk it like you talk it and the appraise results and adjust accordingly.
Labels about ideas don’t really work.
Actions and results do. If Burnham is to change anything, he’d better just get on with it. The results or lack of, will speak for themselves.
Thatcher had to say that she was never a monetarist when monetarism failed in the early 1980s. She had to lie. Stymied (Starmer) crows about what he has changed – but nothing has changed. Now look at him.
Stop telling us what you are doing – just do it – and by that I mean, just do the right thing for once, that would be nice.
A very thoughtful post.
Gramsci felt that every social grievance had a kernel of truth in it, even if you disagreed with it.
In management theory, situational leadership gave you the chance to mould your approach to match reality – assume the role that was needed, a sort of contingent approach to managing.
Really, every day we live starts out as a journey of discovery and yet we are constantly expected to pursue certainty. Maybe this has something to do with money, or its lack or something related like seeking to control it. Maybe it is the fact of being out of touch like the current Thatcherite politics that we endure.
What I have learnt in this age of working from home in the public sector is that close proximity to people and problems works best.
Much to agree with
Good post.
A thought exercise…
Is it “true” to say “Shabana Mahmood is a racist” ?
If Burnham becomes PM & keeps her as Home Sec, is HE a racist?
What is racism?
Is it racist to use extremely harsh immigration policies, primarily to get racists to vote for you (rather than because you somehow have convinced yourself that they might make the world a better place)?
Why do PMs appoint non-white females to carry out extreme right wing policies as Home Secretaries anyway (Patel, Bravermann, Mahmood)?
How important are verifiable facts and evidence in answering those questions?
Might I think differently about the questions, depending on whether I am an asylum seeker, an immigrant, a black person, a white person, a Red Wall voter, rich, poor, homeless in Wigan, or called Shabana Mahmood, Peter Thiel, Rupert Lowe, or Nigel Fa***e? Why?
How might my religious belief affect my answers, as a Mennonite, Quaker, atheist, agnostic, UK Baptist, Muslim, humanist, progressive or Orthodox Jew, or Christian Nationalist?
Interestingly, immediately after Pontius Pilate asked the famous “What is truth?” question (John 18:38 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2018%3A38&version=CEV ), he tried (and failed) to release Jesus and declare him innocent – the crowd “knew” the truth and wanted Barrabas.
It’s clearly an important and disturbing question.
Thank you
I’ll try to answer your question about why PMs appoint non-white females to implement what are in reality racist policies, and the language they use to do so.
One reason is that “the public” see a non- white female saying things which might be condemned if a white person said them, and think “That can’t be racist. She’s non-white”. They probably don’t think that consciously, btw. I have a strategy which immediately filters out racist comments from Ministers – I remove the word “immigrant” or “migrant” and substitute the word “Jew”. That soon identifies racism.
Listening to different experiences and perspectives is key to win-win negotiating, the building of trust and mutual respect. My career as an insurance claims negotiator, 20 years as a senior trade union rep in the company I worked for and 7 years as a pension trustee plus all my subsequent years as a community activist has taught me that.
Much to agree with
I can’t vote. All the options can be best in particular situations. If I want to know how much chlorine I can tolerate before it kills me, then I want verifiable facts and evidence. If I’m wondering whether some dinosaurs had warm blood, I need to look at the context of claims. Questioning beliefs and assumptions, when it comes to religion, just leave me in a better-informed state of uncertainty. And listening to other experiences and perspectives helps me understand better, and forgive more, thus making me, I hope, a more caring person. And the context decides which option leads to action.
Fair!
I have voted for Evidence and verifiable facts, but even that is subject to some of the other options. As an example I have met many people who believe that Jesus Christ was a living person and the proof of that is in the historical record. To me that needs consideration – I see the historical record as something that was recorded contemporaneously. If it was recorded after the event it relies on word of mouth or memory and those can be wrong. Even if there is a contemporary written record, that, and all written records, are subject to context. Trump makes a written record of a huge number of things, none of which most people would accept as truth.
So, perhaps, there is no ‘truth’?
I think there might be a few. The second law of thermodynamics, for example. But most are conditional.
When I used to canvass, an often repeated phrase you got on the doorstep was, ” They are all the same, politicians that is”. I used to argue against this train of thought, but I think nowadays that would be much more difficult. And not only in the political arena. Our trust in many institutions has been eroded to such an extent that now most of us refuse to accept their statements at face value, and prefer to investigate further before forming an opinion. And as a former Police Officer you would expect me to vote for evidence and verifiable facts, which is exactly what I have done.
🙂
No human on this earth can claim to know the ‘whole truth’, but only what the facts/experiences sensed, perceived and interpreted at a given point in time and space. The judgement and recordings made at the time will then also change when retrieving that same bit of information at a later time point, because of further alterations within the complexities of the interacting connections of the neural networks within the brain.
So in a similar vain, when there are those that go on the television this morning reiterating about sticking to ‘fiscal rules’, should realise that those rules were written several years ago in the aim to protect businesses and financial institutions; however times have now changed, where circumstances now need for those rules to be re-examined, re-evaluated, and re-adjusted for the protection and to serve the needs of the greater public.
It shouldn’t have to be binary choice of ‘either/or’; but rather ‘neither/nor’. Nothing is perfect nor is something completely flawed; what somebody may discard as waste in one country, can be an income stream for someone else sorting and recycling it in another; keep an open mind, learn from a wide variety of sources, and most importantly be humble enough to know that life involves learning continuously and not from what is rigidly written down in one book.
Most ‘social truths’ (aka morals) are shared conventions that co-ordinate peoples’ voluntary actions for mutual benefit and convenience. Historically, moral truth was ascribed to ‘god’ and so could be regarded as an externally imposed absolute. But we now live in a secular networked society with multiple, parallel ‘truths’. The situation is like the game rugby where there are two codes, rugby union and rugby league. People can play one or other, both or neither over the course of a year, but need to agree to play to one set of rules for the duration of a match. Its not ‘rugby-ist’ for people to complain if substitute players come on part way through a match and start playing to the other set of rules. People might simply not want to integrate.
A politics of care requires an understanding of the human condition, not a condemnation or denial of the fact that we are conscious social primates who spent the first 190K of our 200k year history living in small hunter-gather bands.