1: They Say...

During a peer discussion of our projects, one classmate was quick to take objection to my proposed research. “Are we actually wrong,” he challenged, “or are we just not completely right?” What he wanted was a distinction between absolute and functional levels of correctness, and in turn, the concession to be made that we can be “right” in a practical sense.

I find his comments interesting, and relevant, for several reasons:

i.) They point out that the terminology I am using is vague and may be dangerously contentious. At first, I was annoyed with this student’s insistence on debating semantics; only afterwards did I realize that I was operating with my own working definitions in mind, and that they weren’t available to the reader.

When I contend that an individual is “wrong”, I am trying to say that the individual has taken up a position that is still in a state of flux, and that cannot answer definitively to all challenges. Such properties do not apply to a true mathematical equation, such as 2 + 2 = 4, which remains constant and unequivocal. It would, however, be fair to say that an individual who believes first in pro-life, then later in pro-choice, was wrong in the former perspective on his own terms because his latter perspective repudiates it. Furthermore, either stance is also wrong on collective terms because each stance carries with it unresolved problems.

Most of our arguments, even if we do not make 180 degree turnarounds, are subject to continuous amendment. As such, they are rarely complete, infallible statements. This level of uncertainty, which is all that we have to stand on, is what I have chosen to call “wrong”. It is problematic terminology, but I must stress that I am more concerned with the qualitative state of mind that this “wrongness” occupies, rather than a clinical notion. “Wrong” and “right” will have to do for now, at least. Perhaps the research that follows will present a word that better fits my definition.

ii.) This is an instant example of how questions can so quickly snowball and become the kind of overwhelmingly huge topic that I alluded to in the proposal. The above clarification is a desperate attempt to curtail such hazards; just barely suppressed by my ad hoc definition are grand notions like morality and universal truth. How can I speak of being wrong when I am ignorant to what is true?! They beg to be addressed; they mock me and write off my research as amateurish at best, and hardly airtight in the face of philosophical logic.

My response: stick to the plan…

iii.) The student’s reaction tells me that my research strikes a nerve with our collective consciousness. We tend not to want to concede that we’re living, breathing bundles of erroneous thought—we want credit for all the things we’re educated on and knowledgeable and wise about. The contention that we may not be so knowledgeable and wise after all about the things we’re best at may even be a bit offensive. This cultural reaction is exactly what I’m proposing we critique (put on the chopping block?)—so I’m glad things are off to a good start.