We’re back on the knotty matter of how we know what we think
we know in a week where belief met disbelief head on. She said, he said with no videotape evidence
to blow denials out of the water or shine a light on fantasy or mistaken identity.
It’s the nightmare
of sexual assault where victims are desperate for vindication. Being believed
is the key issue according to psychotherapist Brendan McCarthy who worked with
child abuse survivors, some of whom had their stories dismissed and were sent
back into the arms of their abusers to have their sanity destroyed.
The massed ranks of
the disbelievers aren’t all malign. They include middle-of-the-road types who
consider themselves moral and decent. Their hostile resistance to acknowledging
allegations is rooted in a deep-seated fear. Their comfortable world would be
up-ended if they accepted such nastiness occurs, even more so if the accused is
a person they consider an upstanding member of the community. For them it’s
safer and less tiring to stay in their delusional bubble fending off unpleasant
realities with an armoury of excuses – the accusers are mad or bad. They leap
with glee onto the instances where claims have been categorically disproved as
if that negated every other sad tale.
Oddly enough belief
also plays a considerable role in science, despite the high IQs claim that
their conclusions are all based on measureable knowledge. Oliver Sacks in a
fascinating chapter in Hidden Histories in Science talks about ‘dirty science’
where the authority in the field crushes any dissent which might undermine
their status and reputation. He tells of Ludwig Bolzmann, the supreme
theoretical physicist of the 19th century, being driven to suicide by
misunderstanding and attack; had he lived only a very little longer, he would
have seen worldwide recognition of his methods and ideas.
In similar vein,
the 19th century doctor, who recommended washing hands between patients to stop
the spread of disease, was all but destroyed by his peers. They couldn’t
stomach the notion they might have been guilty of malpractice. Seems tragically
laughable now but fervently held beliefs, especially those which prop up
reputations, are defended with destructive vehemence.
The depressing fact
is how universal this phenomenon is across all arenas. Max Planck, physicist
admitted "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light but rather because its opponents
eventually die, a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
And Pulitzer
Prize-winning Ernest Becker identifies the reason behind the hostility which
erupts when faced with our own and others’ lies. “The individual has to protect himself
against the world, and he can do this only as any other animal would; by
narrowing down the world, shutting off experience, developing an obliviousness
to the terrors of the world and to his own anxieties.....* We don't want to
admit that we are fundamentally dishonest about
reality."
It’s not that (most)
people can’t be persuaded to change their minds but it isn’t the simple linear
process which common sense might indicate. There is a period of turmoil when
old beliefs disintegrate and along with them the mental stability they brought.
The disorientation of glimpsing a new view of reality can be destabilising. Not
infrequently people flip back to the old certainties and won’t be budged.
If enough don’t,
then there is progress – and an almighty conflict between the dinosaurs and the
bearers of the new knowledge. But it
does take the equivalent of a meteor-strike to wipe out old mindsets.
Follow me on:
BUY my new crime thriller BY the LIGHT of a LIE at:
www.marjorieorr.com
