Jains have such severe prohibitions on eating that many of them become malnourished. Skyclad Jains feel that eating any sort of meat is an aggression and therefore prohibited. For similar reasons, Jains are prohibited from engaging in agriculture. Thus, the scope of what Jains can do and what they may eat narrows. This Skyclad Jain fear of doing violence is extrapolated to vegetables: Jain ascetics will not eat any vegetable for fear of damaging the plant. They eat only those things thrown off the plants as detritus: leaves and fruits that fall from the branches. Further extrapolation of this dietary restriction to its natural conclusion results in Jain monks not wearing clothing, for clothes are a form of violence to something. Those ascetics who have achieved kevalin (absolute knowledge) do not eat at all. Most of them continue to live for about two months before achieving ultimate karma reduction on the ultimate weight reduction diet. Thus, even these superreligious people cannot avoid the consequences that naturally fall on those who follow the ultimate diet: eating nothing at all. The consequence of eating nothing at all is death. And that is what happens to all those who achieve kevalin.
Fear of being alone is a form of herd instinct.
Gregarious animals, even when living alone, persist in behaving as if they were part of a group. This is why a dog may eat hurriedly and “wolf” down food, although there is no reason to fear that the food may be snatched away. In man, the main item evidencing persistence of herd gregariousness is the fear of physical or emotional or mental solitude. Such fears underlie the need to talk even when there is nothing to say. Such fears underlie the need for contact with others even though we may have better things to do. Such fears underlie our species’ remarkable susceptibility to leadership and our remarkable interest in celebrity. The fear of not being “in the loop,” “in the know,” “in the swim,” “in the groove,” “hip,” “in fashion,” or approved by the group in some matter, shape, or form has the adverse effect on our rational thinking that is nearly always damaging. This is because it encourages us to accept without reason or evidence whatever the herd dictates. This p. 190 effect would be less damaging if majorities were right more often. The founding fathers of America were well aware of herd instinct, and that is why they were so much against having a state religion and so much in favor of free speech (one of the reasons, anyway). Along these lines, the free flow of correct information is absolutely necessary for considered judgment, and that is why the government should not be permitted to lie to the public or restrict the flow of information, the public should have free access to information, and state secrecy should be eliminated.
Misfits, oddballs, eccentrics, and others who don’t fit in are probably engineered by evolution into the human species to aid the majority in correcting erroneous thinking or to protect the species from extinction by overdoing conformity to some kooky idea.
A good case could be made for the truth of the above statement. Most great advances in science and government have been made by people of genius, eccentric figures who refuse to accept what their contemporaries thought was obvious and self-evident. Because these individuals frighten the herd by their strangeness, many of the world’s greatest benefactors have been persecuted or put to death. Look at Jesus. Look at Socrates. Look at Joan of Arc, who rid France of English domination. Look at Darwin. Look at Galileo. Look at the homosexuals whose contribution to art, drama, literature, fashion design, food preparation, and such has been enormous.
Custom is a form of herd instinct. As such, it is neither right nor wrong—just culturally relative.
Thus, American women who wear rings in their ears regard it as barbaric for African women to wear bones in their noses. Which is right? Rings in ears? Bones in nose? Both? Neither? Clearly, what women wear is a cultural social thing and is not right or wrong. To claim that wearing bones in the nose is wrong is to select evidence from one part of the world while neglecting evidence from another. This is therefore an error in thinking that, for no good reason, selects one custom as correct and selects the other as incorrect. Apply the same thinking to tattoos. Good? Bad? Who really cares? Tattoos are OK for those who want them and not OK for those who don’t.
Resistance to anything that threatens mental harmony accounts for our dislike of change. When William Willett proposed setting the clocks back or forward according to the seasons to preserve daylight, he was roundly rebuked for all sorts of phony reasons. Arguments were put forp. 191ward that manipulating the clock was blasphemous, lunatic, or impractical. The plan was really opposed initially because it was a change, something different.
In 1846, Boston dentist William Morton first introduced ether to pull a tooth. Up to that time, people just had to suffer during surgery, which was performed only in extreme emergencies. Anesthesia offered the advantage that the operation could be performed more leisurely, under better controlled circumstances, and without the patient feeling pain. Such great advantages, you would think, would have led to the rapid employment of the newly discovered agents that cause complete or partial loss of pain. But (not surprisingly) anesthesia met with stern opposition. The arguments advanced against it included that it was unnatural and blasphemous. If God had intended that mankind not suffer pain, he would not have created pain for mankind to suffer. Use of anesthesia during childbirth was considered particularly problematic because the Bible said that women should bring forth children in pain. Actually, that problem was more easily solved than first imagined. The book of Genesis did not prescribe pain in childbirth, only sorrow. Therefore, measures to prevent pain might actually be allowed by the Bible: “Unto the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.’ ” The real reason for the opposition was that anesthesia required a revision of accepted ideas.
Principle: Opposition to the new and different is irrational because it substitutes habit for consideration of the evidence and to that extent is a partial selection of evidence and therefore wrong.
From which follows:
Lesson: What’s new and different is neither good nor bad, save that reason makes it so. Adopt new things as soon as they are proven safe and effective advances over the old.
Habit is frequently a partial selection.
Yes, we are creatures of habit. As creatures of habit, we dislike change. From infancy to adulthood, many of us are taught to accept the prevailing ideas of our age, the traditions of our class, the customs of the country, and the opinions of the people in charge, including our p. 192 parents. In later life, we look back on the world in which we grew up as the best of all possible worlds and describe our youth with a partially selected forgetfulness as the “good old days.” Most times, customs are so ingrained that we can’t even think our way to something new and different. When I traveled to England with a group of American tourists, I heard complaints that the traffic was moving on the wrong side of the road and that made it hazardous for Americans to cross the street because instead of looking left initially, they should be looking right.
When my physician friend came to visit me in Paris while I was there on sabbatical, he complained bitterly that the people were speaking French instead of a language that could be better understood, namely, English.
Such people assume, without thinking, that there is no other view than that which they happen to enjoy. From their standpoint, only one facet of the truth is revealed. They don’t care how different things can easily be and yet remain commodious.
Prejudice is a form of herd instinct based on partial selection of evidence.
In chapter 1 we discussed how a prejudiced person can suffer greatly. We learned about the cops who were arrested by the county judge. Thus prejudice can hurt both those who are prejudiced and the victim. A prejudiced person is unreasonable because he has based his opinion on preconceived notions without paying due attention to the evidence. Remember, the only reasonable ground for holding a belief is that the facts require us to do so. People guilty of prejudice prejudge the facts and hence hav
e jumped to unwarranted conclusions.
Principle: Prejudice is an error in thinking.
From which follows:
Lesson: Don’t hold unwarrantable opinions. Don’t believe what is comfortable to believe. Don’t let your thinking be influenced by feelings or the opinion of the group.
Principle: All personal provincial prejudices are wrong.
My opinion that doctors should not have to pay taxes because doctors perform such important social services is obviously suspect, since I am a doctor and thus likely to have allowed irrelevant personal considp. 193erations—like my desire for a new and bigger boat—to have more weight than they deserve. A hunter who has just shot a deer might tell himself that the kill was clean and painless and that the deer didn’t really mind because it didn’t know what hit it. The hunter might believe this and, in fact, the hunter might be right, but the hunter is nevertheless prejudiced insofar as he reaches his conclusion not because of the facts but because he derives pleasure from a pursuit that is too cruel to contemplate objectively. Consider the following statement: “Hunting is really an act of kindness to deer. It reduces the number in the group and allows for the herd to have enough food.”
Any prejudice in evidence?
What if the statement came from a hunter? What if the statement came from a farmer whose crops have been devastated by deer? What if the statement came from an environmental protection park ranger who has a PhD in wild animal management?
Law must make every effort to eliminate prejudice, else justice will suffer.
The law understands prejudice and bends over backward to avoid it. That is why juries are not permitted to know about the previous convictions of accused persons. If they did, it might be almost impossible for them to judge the present case without prejudice. That a person previously broke and entered is not proof that he committed the same crime again. (If you don’t get this, stop here and think about it.)
Knowledge of a prisoner’s past would color his trial. What is necessary to convict the accused is evidence, not that he did a previous crime but that he did the crime for which he is now being tried.
The rules of evidence, the constitutional protection from self-incrimination, the requirement that testimony of accomplices (especially accomplices given immunity for their testimony) be independently corroborated, and many other fine principles of law are based on the need to avoid prejudice. Where would the testimony of Monica Lewinsky be if there were not the DNA evidence on that cocktail dress? How much could we believe her testimony when she had already lied under oath and was now changing her story to (in part) get less harsh treatment from the justice department?
The law recognizes that self-interest makes people susceptible to prejudice. Persons should not vote at a board meeting of Enron, at a city council meeting, or (God help us!) in the US Senate if they have a personal financial interest in anything under consideration. Heavy penalties should attach to any such dishonorable conduct by any member of Conp. 194gress sworn to represent the interest of all the people. Unfortunately, in the cold, harsh light of history, we learn that many public servants are not in their positions to serve the public but to line their own pockets.
Beware vested interests; they can cause trouble.
When Saint Paul attacked the goddess Diana at Ephesus, the center of Diana worship, he met considerable opposition from the guild that made the silver statues of the goddess. When Christ challenged the powers that be, he got into serious trouble. What happened is a good illustration of what happens when vested interests are threatened.
“Pilate then went out unto them, and said, ‘What accusation bring ye against this man?’ They answered and said unto him, ‘If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee’ ” (John 18:29-30).
Note the tautology and the circular argument. The crowd is merely restating that it thinks Jesus is doing wrong or has done wrong; we can’t tell which. The argument is circular because, in effect, it says, “Jesus is a criminal. If he were not a criminal, he wouldn’t be accused of being a criminal.” The type of malefaction, and the evidence for what Jesus did wrong, is not stated. Therefore, irrational factors are at work. The real reason that Jesus is in trouble is never stated. The chief priests wanted Jesus killed because Jesus had criticized their hypocrisy.
“Then said Pilate unto them, ‘Take ye him, and judge him according to your law.’ The Jews therefore said unto him, ‘It is not lawful for us to put any man to death’ ” (John 18:31).
Notice that the crowd members are not particularly concerned with the formality of a trial or the detailed examination of Jesus’ guilt or innocence. Their concern is that they don’t have the real authority to put Jesus to death. That’s what they want. They don’t want to judge Jesus; they want to kill him. The Jewish law at the time forbade capital punishment, but it didn’t forbid getting around the law by having the Romans do the dirty work. The Jews depicted here are guilty of the extreme error of selecting all evidence out of consideration and letting their emotions ride free.
Further along, Pilate asked Jesus, “What hast thou done?”
Note that Pilate is still trying to figure out the problem. Pilate is, like any good judge, interested in the evidence for the transgression. And like any good judge, Pilate is getting irritated because the crowd is just feeding him bullshit. The crowd just wants blood. But the crowd knows it doesn’t have the right to crucify Christ.
p. 195 “Jesus answered, . . . ‘for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice.’ Pilate saith unto him, ‘What is truth?’ ” (John 18:36-38).
Jesus is now making assertions without evidence. His generalization can’t be correct. It is impossible that everyone that is of the truth hears him. It is a big world out there, and Pilate knows it. Jesus’ voice carries only so far and no further. And Pilate justly asks Jesus to define the word truth because in this context Jesus seems to be begging the question (an error wherein something is asserted as true that needs to be proven true). Jesus has assumed the point in the dispute and taken for granted the truth of something that requires proof before his argument can be accepted. Therefore, Jesus has “begged the question.” The very extravagance of the emotive language frequently betrays it for what it is. Only the simplest-minded person could believe that the trial was objective. So perhaps Jesus, who appears to have been an intelligent man, realized that his was a lost cause. Perhaps Jesus was just trying to get across his core message that the truth was important. Perhaps Jesus wanted to make one final assertion for posterity, an assertion that my personal bias backs and supports: that truth is important, so important it is worth dying for.
In fact, Jesus telling the truth about current conditions among the Hebrews was the root cause of his political troubles. For it was the truth that generated the hatred of the Scribes and Pharisees. If Jesus had attempted to explain even the premise of his argument that the Scribes and Pharisees were corrupt, they would have probably stoned him then and there, particularly as the reluctance of an audience to be instructed is usually proportional to its ignorance.
The Jews in question, unlike Pilate, were not prepared to hear the arguments on the other side but preferred to shout “Crucify him, crucify him” (their slogan) repeatedly, thereby silencing opposition.
The episode illustrates what happens when cherished beliefs and long-standing traditions and entrenched powers are threatened. The crowd gets pugnacious, stops thinking, and starts shouting slogans to encourage itself.
Principle: Chanting crowds are herds out of control: The stronger the crowd feels about something, the less likely it makes sense.
p. 196 From which follows:
Lesson: Chanting crowds mean trouble. Avoid them. Usually, what the crowd wants is wrong. Have nothing to do with it.
“Pilate therefore went forth again and saith unto them, ‘I find no fault with this just man. See to it yourselves’ ” (John 18:38).
/>
In effect, Pilate has told the crowd, no evidence, no case. This is exactly the correct conclusion, the only justified conclusion at law.
Watch out for truths labeled as obvious.
Despite our knowledge that most of the great advances in science and in ethics have been made by rejecting “obvious” truths, we cling uncritically to habits and traditions. Remember, it was once thought that the heart was the center of the soul, that the red blood cell was inert, that Earth was the center of the universe, that kings were chosen by God, and so forth.
The quest for certainty and the irrational belief that certainty exists is an error in thinking often due to partial (and premature) selection of evidence.
The human mind likes to keep things the same and simple. Because the human mind seeks comfort, questions that should remain open and undecided become prematurely settled. Skepticism that the evidence demands is discarded. Unable to bear the suspense of judgment that reason often requires, we find it intolerable to live in a world that doesn’t entirely make sense; therefore, we construct a false image of that world, which we consider reality even though it is fantasy.
Think of any political, moral, esthetic, ethical controversy. For instance, the Earth goes around the sun. Why did it take so long for it to be generally accepted that the Earth revolves around the sun and that the Earth is not the center of the universe? Take evolution. Why did the theory of evolution (which, by the way, is a fact, not a theory) take so long to be generally accepted? How about equal rights for women?
Truth, Knowledge, or Just Plain Bull: How to tell the difference Page 23
