Epistemological Breakthrough

I am appalled at the relative ignorance of journalists about the science of epistemology. They let contributors get away with just about any assertion or even allegation, without challenge. We have a right to opine or believe what we want, but we don't have the right to fabricate our own truths; however, some people have their minds made up and don't want to be confused with the facts. The truth is true whether one believes in it or not--i.e., objective truth--and no matter who says it. Even experts speaking in the area of their expertise (and often they are deemed authorities outside their domain), can be wrong. Let me give you a for instance: When investigating history, a secular historian trumps a biblicist of the first order, a theologian, biblical scholar, expositor, or whosoever.

The Bible has never been proved wrong historically, though many have attempted to do so, and this begs the question: "Why should it be considered unreliable or have dubious authenticity or veracity. There is ample evidence to support its claims and even archaeology has never contravened a biblical reference (with over 25,000 excavation sites or digs). The burden of proof, historically (per Socrates dictum), is on the person challenging the authority of the Scriptures, not the Bible, which is self-attesting because it has to be, or it couldn't claim ultimate authority in itself.

The only faith and worldview that has EVIDENCE to back it up and isn't based on pure blind faith is the Judaeo-Christian one. There's no evidence that Muhammad was spoken to by Gabriel--in fact, it controverts what we know about him from the Bible, because he proclaimed Christ to be the Son of God, and the Koran says Jesus is just the prophet that preceded Muhammad, though He is called the Christ or Messiah, He is given no divine status! Why would an angel contradict himself?

I want to see journalists challenge the persons of interest that they are interviewing and learn to direct the conversation by direct questions, and, when they give roundabout answers to challenge them, that they haven't answered the question, but have just fed us a line of propaganda in order to get free publicity for their cause or agenda. Hold them accountable and we need fact-checkers to be watchdogs and given the opportunity to do their job.

People often believe statements merely because they are publicized or in print and accept them as gospel truth. They are gullible and lend credence to such impossible ideas as conspiracy theories, which are only a figment of the imagination and have no basis in fact. Another suggestion is to listen to both sides before making a rash decision about who's right or wrong--don't jump to the conclusion because of partiality! When someone makes a statement in the media, it should be clarified that this is only his opinion and not factual per se; he could be wrong! There is quite a leap of faith going from opinion to fact and some people make no such distinction.

We can know things from circumstantial evidence, such as the resurrection of Christ, which also has eyewitness testimony and historical documentation, and this kind of evidence is acceptable in a court of law and is valid. A court case can be proved based on it alone.

My plea to journalists is to keep contributors and guests restricted to making statements that they can back up with factual evidence and stick to their area of expertise or training. A chief propaganda methodology is to tell really big lies and keep telling them till the public at large learns to accept it. A better technique to keep lies at bay is to ask them where they gathered their information--we don't want hearsay, gossip, disinformation, or even misinformation (even if misconstrued) to be disseminated, or should I say perpetrated? False allegations should be given the opportunity to be refuted in an equitable manner--the public has a right to hear both sides of an issue.

Asking direct questions deserve a direct answer and sometimes in the affirmative or negative. Sometimes guest outbursts call for ground rules and laying down the law. Many times conflict can be resolved by defining terms; this implies there's a problem of semantics. Kudos to all investigative reporters who don't take everything they hear at face value, but in skepticism until there is evidence to back it up--this art should not stop with the correspondent but continue in all levels of journalism.

Journalism 101 should teach journalists to do their homework, work in their field of training so they know their subject, go for substance, not appearance or delivery, not to leave questions up in the air without settling the issue or giving both sides an opportunity, not to be so image-conscious, be as skeptical and hard to convince as possible, driving them to give a straight up and down, yes or no answer when given a direct question without any avoiding the issue or changing the subject to get their propaganda some air time, they need to be informed enough to be able to ask spontaneous questions and follow what they say to lead the interview with these questions--not trying to trip them up, but being fair, so that they are not so dependent on the producers preparing questions beforehand to ask that they clueless about--it shows!

These are only common-sense ground rules that any adept journalist should have the instinct to follow. What has happened due to the race for ratings is a void filled by the lowest common denominator. It seems like they are too afraid to be labeled biased or of taking sides and don't realize that no one is completely objective; they have the right to be human! NB:  Journalists ought to beware of the "Red Herring" technique properly called by better names: the pivot, argument by irrelevance, argument by changing the subject, or even by the talking point.  Soli Deo Gloria!