I have argued, in earlier posts, that there is a strange connection between entertainment and our ideas about knowledge. Specifically, people who grow up immersed in the imaginary worlds of entertainment seem to have a tendency to accept relativism, the idea that there can be different versions of the truth. It would be too much to claim that entertainment causes relativism, but there are some historical connections that suggest that relativism has developed hand-in-hand with the culture of entertainment.
Speaking of strange connections, here's another one. For some people strong faith in science contributes to the acceptance of relativism. That is, officially, in our society, we believe the most certain source of knowledge is science (I say officially because privately many people, perhaps most people, in our society continue to believe that the most certain knowledge comes from sacred texts such as the Bible).
Although I agree enthusiastically with the official view-the most certain knowledge comes from rigorous application of the scientific method--I also take it as obvious that there are lots of questions that science cannot address. For example, science cannot tell us why the universe exists, the purpose of human life, or which color of Pez is the best.
However, some people are so enthusiastic about science that they extend their conviction that the scientific method is the most reliable source of knowledge to the conclusion that it is the only source of knowledge. According to this reasoning, in areas where we cannot establish scientific truth, there is no truth. Voila, extreme cultural relativism.
An example: Many people (intelligent and well educated though they may be) assert that the value of artistic endeavors is simply a matter of opinion, that (for example) one cannot pronounce one painting or piece of music better than another. According to this line of thought, no one can say that a portrait of a sad clown on black velvet is any better or worse than a Rembrandt, or that a Beethoven symphony is better than a Lady Gaga song. Since there is no scientific way of proving that the Rembrandt is better than the clown, it isn't.
But in fact, there is plenty of evidence that the Rembrandt is a better painting than the clown: it is more complex, creative, original, skilled in its execution, etc. Now, of course, people can deny that, just as a majority of the American population denies the evidence that supports the theory of evolution. But, in both cases, the fact that people deny something has no bearing on the question of whether it is true. We call something true when the best evidence we have supports it, whether or not that evidence has been derived scientifically.
Another example: It is wrong to murder people and keep them in your freezer so that later you can eat them. However, this fact was not established by scientific investigation. Do you believe that because there is no scientific evidence that murder is wrong, then maybe it is OK? If so, you are confused and potentially dangerous. Extreme relativism starts off sounding liberal and tolerant, it ends up being morally incoherent.
Learn more at Peter G. Stromberg's website.
