by David D. Horowitz.
Hello! Hello? HELLO? HEL-lo. HELLO!!! “Hello” can be said in countless ways and might convey joy, ambivalence, sarcasm, love, or surprise, depending as much on a speaker’s inflection as the word’s definition.
Yes, but that’s true of almost any word or phrase.
Yes, it is, as any skillful actor or politician knows. And this can yield the subtlest eloquence and the most devious demagoguery. Whereas someone of integrity might persist in asking an evasive politician difficult questions, the politician might indignantly respond, “Yes, but…” to befog and delude.
So, what constitutes a “credible basis” for asserting a claim to truth? Haven’t great philosophers—Plato, Aristotle, Montaigne, Descartes, Hume, Kant—analyzed and debated the question without reaching any broad, clear consensus? “Yes, but…” seems the eternal refrain.
And yet, we still need to test for epistemological credibility and call out dodges and duplicity. Shoddy “evidence” and false testimony could help convict an innocent person, who might wrongly sit in prison for fifty years; hasty testing could yield toxic medicine that kills rather than heals; and reckless news reporting could spread unsubstantiated rumors that destroy an honorable person’s reputation. We cannot simply concede all knowledge claims to a thoughtless relativism. What does one say to a genocide denier or a slavery denier or a murder or rape suspect with a dubious alibi? No one knows what’s true, so what you’re claiming is just as good as any other claim? Is that justice? What does one say to a narcissistic politician who refuses to accept election results: your claim is as good as those of the election officials, so we’ll let you stay in office for as long as you like? Is that how a constitutional republic is supposed to work?
People need not wander across an epistemological wilderness. We often understand when alibis contradict physical evidence, when too many coincidences don’t add up, and when freethinkers who would speak honestly are harassed and silenced by the powerful. We’re not without credible resources to decide amongst competing claims, and we need to cultivate the responsibility to make decisions, while also staying open-minded and tolerant. In other words: respect the golden mean, yin and yang, the continual balancing and rebalancing that yields some approximate justice. Between absolute relativism and naïve realism is a middle ground of credible but tentative assertion, always open to revision and negotiation and reasonable doubt, especially when presented with new evidence. This is the humane epistemological center, where “Yes, but…” implies the desire to reach an often complex truth, not use questions as smokescreens to avoid responsibility for violence, theft, or deceit.
Yet, what you advocate requires education, effort, and maturity. Not everyone wants to blend decisiveness and caution. It’s difficult to do.
Yes, but… what choice do we have?