The Quality of Knowledge Is Best Measured by How Many People Accept It
By: Tyler Piteo-Tarpy
Tags: Philosophy, History, Education, Knowledge, Ethics

The Quality of Knowledge Is Best Measured by How Many People Accept It

A Philosophical Analysis of This Statement

Photo by San Fermin Pamplona from Pexels

“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?