The Quality of Knowledge Is Best Measured by How Many People Accept It
A Philosophical Analysis of This Statement
“History is written by the victors” — Sr. Winston Churchill
This euphemism is a well-known and much-disputed interpretation of history; however, as evidenced by real-world events, there is clearly some truth to it.
For example, in 1953 the North Korean government, although not exactly being the victors of the Korean War, did manage to stop the reunification effort with South Korea by the United Nations and secure the totalitarian regime in their country for the Kim dynasty who continues to deny that they started the war and also claims that they won it.
Although they are not able to convince the rest of the world of their stance, they were able to completely indoctrinate their own people.
These facts led me to realize that the fundamental statement this quote truly declares is that power defines knowledge; power from controlling a country after “winning” a war, and knowledge from the history that those with power write.
In the North Korean case, knowledge is completely dependant on how many people accept it, regardless of if what is known is true. So I began questioning:
Is knowledge dependant on truth? Is truth dependant on knowledge? What is truth? What makes something true? Is truth controllable?
Another interesting nuance of this quote is that it was not actually said by Winston Churchill; that is, there is no known record of him being the first to coin the phrase.
The notion probably began as some misinterpretation of one of his prolific statements, was then connected to this quote which has an unknown origin, and then spread about until the two, man and maxim, were combined.
The interesting part of this confusion is the general acceptance of it as being straightforward; the belief spread until it became fact, truth, knowledge, a consensus.
Does consensus control what is known? What constitutes a consensus? How reliable is knowledge?
These thoughts stemmed from the above Title and eventually led to one primary Question which will be the topic of the remainder of this exploratory essay and will be examined through the lenses of two areas of knowledge, history and ethics.
Question:
Can and should consensus control truth?
History:
Can consensus control truth?
The North Korean example proves that, on a small scale, controlling what is known to a population and thereby controlling their truth is possible. However, that truth was not developed through a consensus, a majority agreement, it was developed through the power of a minority suppressing knowledge and thereby preventing the possibility of a different consensus.
But, what is a consensus if not power? Why would the majority belief, that the North started and lost the war, come into conflict with the minority belief if it didn’t pose a threat to their power?
Transitively, it would seem that “Churchill’s” quote also agrees with the statement that consensus defines knowledge, and therefore truth.
History itself is a strong candidate for proving that a consensus can control truth. As a consequence of history being completely dependant on human records, there is a large potential for error brought about by a historian’s subjectivity, personal agendas, and simple interpretive mistakes, and the only way around this problem is a consensus of historians on what happened.
After the consensus, this new agreed-upon information seeps into the general public and is accepted through the appeal to authority fallacy, then continues its spread even further with the use of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
These fallacies are inevitable, as in any instance of mass knowledge sharing, and actually contribute to the potential for consensus control of truth in history; authority is power after all and the acceptance of knowledge as truth simply because others do is the answer to the very Question itself.
A real-world example of large scale consensus control of truth is the history of Christopher Columbus. I remember when the consensus was that Columbus was the heroic explorer who discovered America. Recently, that narrative has been replaced by one stating he was actually a mass murderer who stumbled upon the continent by accident. The truth changed.
There is, of course, no way to go back in time and determine what the objective truth is, so, we are left with two options, research to gain knowledge and determine our own truth, or accept the most reliable and pleasing truth, the consensus.
In this case, the consensus shifted and so now the truth is also uncertain, which proves that not only does consensus control truth, but it is also the only thing that really does. George Orwell’s 1984 offers an example of this fact in the extreme; he writes:
“if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.”
There is an obvious counter to all this talk of consensus: the truth is the truth, and mass opinion can’t change it.
In fact, the consensus theory of truth is described by Wikipedia as “taking statements to be true simply because people generally agree upon them,” which, because of the word “simply,” gives this explanation a rather disapproving tone.
But I wonder, if we do away with the term “generally” and replace it with “universally,” is it still a theory to be dismissed?
In a world where every single conscious being believes in a fact, does it matter at all whether or not that fact is in alignment with reality? Furthermore, would that universally agreed-upon fact not then become reality, become truth?
Without consciousness, there is no possible way to prove reality’s existence; as René Descartes postulated, “Cogito, ergo sum”, “I think, therefore I am.”
In fact, this possibility is so very possible that it could be occurring at this moment, or at any moment, and no one would have any way of knowing it because everyone would know that they know the truth, whether or not it is the truth, thereby making it the truth.
To use another quote, this one from the 2013 film Her:
“the past is just a story we tell ourselves.”
What if truth is just another story too?
Ethics:
Should consensus control truth?
So, knowing that consensus can and does control truth, the next question is, should it? There is something to gain by agreeing with a majority: comradery, validation, support.
Orwell also wrote:
“Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one.”
So by following the consensus, one is then not considered a lunatic. However, there are also large downsides to accepting this way of thinking. Throughout history, atrocities have been committed because people followed the consensus belief: the Holocaust, for example.
On another note, modern media has started to become tangled in this issue of consensus determined truth as well. The abundance of information put out into the world has led to a form of tribalization based on agreement about certain information. There are people literally calling each other lunatics because they follow a different consensus, just as Orwell predicted.
Though not for exactly the same purpose, the Greek philosopher Socrates also thought about the issue of the power of consensus. He believed that, in a democratic society, when it came time to vote on the leader, only those who were learned about politics and had studied the skill of voting should have a say as he feared the danger an ill-informed majority posed in the handling of power.
As it turns out, Socrates was sentenced to death for his beliefs by a jury majority.
There seems to be little to say for the case of consensus control of truth; it appears to lead to situations that are just ethically wrong. But why are they considered ethically wrong? How was that decided?
The answer is, oddly enough, consensus control of truth. There is a consensus that the Holocaust was wrong because there is a consensus that killing people is wrong; it’s a truth most people accept.
Now, there is still one possible counter-argument for this matter, that of a higher power. One of the ways of knowing is faith and so it is possible to say that the agreement on ethics and morality come from a higher power and therefore consensus should not control truth.
However, not even considering that the notion of a higher power might itself be an example of consensus control of truth, I see the benefit of self-defined morality and ethical values through consensus as a worthy use of its power and it seems that, like many things, the answer to “should consensus control truth?” is “in moderation.”
Conclusion:
Consensus’ can and do control truth and they, therefore, have power. This power, like all power, can be used for good or bad and it is thus up to individuals to decide what they believe, to determine what is good and bad for themselves, and then how to use their power as part of a consensus to act on their beliefs.
So it would seem that even though consensus’ possess control over truth, the real power is still in the individual, those who make up consensus’.
Like Socrates advised, the power of agreement can be a wonderful tool when wielded by an informed populace. Even the cynic Orwell offered this counter to his previously mentioned ideas:
“There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”
Want More?
Join 3000+ fellow explorers trying to expand their thinking and reach a higher existence.
More on similar topics:
…As well as being a process for determining belief, the triangle of belief acts as a test of one’s consistency…
…morality ought to be the foundation governments are constructed upon…
…anyone who says they know what morality is is both wrong and an invaluable facet of the search for it…
