To trust politicians, we must first verify who is telling the truth

OPINION:

The campaign season is here, the first debates are just around the corner, and we are about to be overwhelmed by a tsunami of claims and counterclaims between one candidate and another.

Amid all the political promises and personal attacks, how can we know who is telling the truth? How can we distinguish between what’s accurate and misleading? How do we determine what is true and what is false?

Before we go any further, let me say congratulations if you even care. You’re in the minority. Only about 40% of Americans say they believe in any absolute standard of right and wrong, true and false.

So, if you believe that the truth even exists, you should be applauded. You are already halfway home, while most of your neighbors haven’t even begun the journey.

But I digress. Let’s get back to the question. How can we evaluate arguments and know if someone is telling the truth?

To set the context, we must first acknowledge the negative: People lie, and they often do so by using certain methods of debate that obfuscate and deceive.

For example, there’s the argument that shoots the messenger. This is an age-old fallacy of diversion that goes back to the days of Socrates. It is technically called the argumentum ad hominem — which means an “argument addressed to the person” instead of the issue.

In other words, you attack your opponent rather than your opponent’s ideas. When you see someone try to brand liberals as “loons” or conservatives as “fundies,” it is a dead giveaway.

When a politician calls those who disagree with him “ignorant,” or when a professor labels her antagonists “fools,” you know the argument is more about political agendas than pursuing truth.

Beware of these tactics. They rarely lead you to your goal of deciphering fact from fiction.

Another tactic to beware of is that of assumption. When a person says something is true, you can’t assume it is so.

This is a non sequitur, which means that the conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the argument. It is perhaps the most common of all fallacies, so common that we often unknowingly fall prey to it.

A pastor makes a claim, so we accept it as fact. A professor denies something, so we assume she is telling the truth. A politician rattles off statistics, and we assume they’re accurate.

The list goes on.

But our experience has repeatedly shown us that trusting personal claims is not a good measure of truth.

Hitler told Chamberlain that he wouldn’t invade Eastern Europe. President Richard Nixon denied complicity in Watergate. President Bill Clinton said he “didn’t have sex with that woman.” And President Biden says he’s never engaged in any business dealings with his son.

Simply saying something doesn’t make it so. History has taught us that truth must be grounded in something more stable than our proven propensity to deceive.

To trust, we must first verify.

But how do we do this? When confronted with conflicting statements, how do we verify what is true and refute what is false? How can we have confidence in what is really honest, trustworthy and true?

Perhaps the answer lies in paradigms and not people — in guiding ideologies rather than fallible men and women.

Here’s a question: Are we missing the forest for the trees when we listen to ad hominem attacks and non sequitur arguments (arguments that presuppose name-calling and arguments that assume a statement is true just because your preferred candidate said so)?

Do we get distracted by fallacies and miss the facts?

If truth is our goal, we must look past the people and look to the guiding principles of their worldview. A person’s worldview sets the context for their truthfulness or lack thereof.

Marxism set the stage for Stalin’s deception and Pol Pot’s killing fields. Social Darwinism was the predicate for Auschwitz’s lie that “work sets you free,” and Robespierre’s atheism led to the “justice” of the guillotine.

Ideas have consequences. Some worldviews acknowledge that truth exists and that we are obligated to pursue it, speak it and defend it. Other worldviews boldly state that there is no such thing as truth, and that’s the truth.

If your goal is to find what is true, you might be better off looking at ideas before listening to people. Perhaps your candidate’s guiding worldview and the consequences of his ideas are the best starting point for assessing sincerity and answering the question as to whether or not he or his opponent is telling the truth.

• Everett Piper (dreverettpiper.com, @dreverettpiper), a columnist for The Washington Times, is a former university president and radio host.