The Written Word Fallacy -- A Look On A Major Error In Media

(Background music)

As humans, we rely heavily on the content we consume to form our conceptions of existence. This makes us vulnerable to being misled or deceived by the many content creators who surround us in our daily lives. Newspapers, television, and even educational institutions—all are capable, whether intentionally or unintentionally, of misleading or spreading falsehoods to their audiences. This fallacy can be called the "Written/Spoken Word" Fallacy; it is perhaps one of the biggest fallacies in the quest for truth.

As Socrates wisely said, "I know nothing." Indeed, all of our knowledge, whether true or false, must first begin with ignorance. We are alone incapable of finding the whole truth, and so we must seek it in many ways from many people. The delusion that we know, after all, serves as a barrier to truer, more superior insights from the world about existence. Therefore, truth-seeking is imperative to finding the truth, whether or not we succeed in doing so. And truth-seeking is a form of sacrifice.

However, the truth is elusive, and figures of authority are not always as reliable as we might hope. Misconceptions can grow and spread, leading to the anti-Socratic delusion that we indeed know. It all begins when we read the written word or hear the spoken word, and we are deluded into believing that it must be true simply because it is presented to us as such.

The Written/Spoken Word Fallacy is not identical to the Authority Fallacy. It is about the mere presence of the written or spoken word, not the authority of the person who is speaking or writing. In fact, even a random stranger can lead us into agreement simply by the confidence with which they speak or write.

It is so easy for humans to accept information as true simply because it is presented to us using convincing methods involving rhetoric and more. And rhetoric I myself learned and displayed during a speech I made in 2017. I know how easy it is to convince by charm and impression, unfortunately, even if an information is in fact misinformation.

This fallacy is most evident when it comes to holy scriptures, as well. The Bible, the Quran, and any other document that is held to be authoritative is often treated as true simply because it is written down in context that is regarded divine. However, just because something is written down does not mean that it is true. In theory, it's possible to find errors in any text, and just one error is enough to cast doubt on the entire document, as purely true. One of the reasons I am revamping my articles so chronically is because I want to make sure I reduce information on Philosocom to a bare minimum. That's one of the keys for a decent philosophy article and a piece of nonfiction in general.

The truth is very hard to find. A single piece of data may require complex thought and multiple sources to affirm its part in the wholeness of existence. The more skeptical we are, the more likely we are to find the truth beyond the layers of unintentional self-misleading. After all, not all information is made public, for example, and not all information that is available is necessarily correct. We must be willing to contemplate the information we receive, or we will be left with half-truths, "post-truths," or falsehoods.

This is why philosophizing is a very tiring work that is also difficult to attract attention to. We live in an age where information is being simplified in favor of attracting readers and viewers. Even some "reality" shows may resort to "filler content" just to keep the ratings high.

With more and more content creators, there is a great competition not necessarily for quality, but for the length of your decreasing attention span. This, in turn, could lead to a great compromise in the work required to deliver the information fairly and effectively. The reason why your attention span is important is because it is the overall imperative of many media bodies. The longer you will stay, read, or watch, the better content creators are at doing their jobs, regardless of the type of their content.

As simplification is far preferred by many over extensive reading -- philosophy, an already-esoteric subject, may as well be declining in inter-subjective importance. It is far easier to receive short sentences and paragraphs, even if it means that the truth will be compromised. It's actually the main way I'm trying to make philosophy more relevant -- by using day-to-day, casual speech in my writings.

How is the truth compromised? It is compromised by the mere presence of a written or spoken word in front of our eyes or ears, and simply accepting it as it is. This is the simplest thing to do, technically. Why would we want to bother to do all the research, necessary to either confirm or deny our findings? Our brains are wired to find the simplest route to everything! It's one of the things that make many of us weak! And whether or not we were correct in our agreement is not something that can be easily confirmed.

When something is presented as true, the most effortless and impractical way to understand it — the "lazy" approach—is to simply accept it as presented. We might as well depend on wikipedia or even social media for our truth-seeking, which is horribly insufficient and a counter-productive way of doing so.

It is crucial to be critical of the information we consume and to question its reliability. We should not simply accept what we are told at face value. We should be partially skeptic at any info presented at us in the name of the truth that might exist beyond it. Whether it is delivered in a causal way or in a theatrical way, it matters not.

A philosopher is simply a man or woman who seek the truth on a deeper level, and depth is something that often requires complexity. That's one of the reasons why philosophy is a complex field to be in -- the truth requires delving deep in a way that isn't necessarily fun, engaging, or even interesting necessarily. This, by the way, can lead to the bored man's fallacy.

We should always conduct our own research and seek out multiple sources of information before forming an opinion. We should also be open to revising our beliefs if presented with new evidence. We should not be attached to our opinions when they are likely to be wrong, that would be counter-productive if we're interested in reality and not in a make-believe fantasy.

It requires time, effort, and critical thinking to focus, eliminate distractions, and uncover the truth. But it is an endeavor worth pursuing. The point of knowing the truth is to act in accordance to it, hence why the truth as a most-practical value.