Acceptable Misguidance

Acceptable Misguidance

Is a lie always a lie? I recently heard the phrase “acceptable misguidance,” in the context of debate, discussion, and rhetoric. I thought this was a very polite term for “lies” but the person arguing for “acceptable misguidance” was making the case that media uses it, specifically in the case of reporting on a story where the producer, owner, or outlet has a particular bias – political or otherwise. What is acceptable misguidance, and does it have a place in enlightened discourse?

Law enforcement is entitled to “lie” in order to have an alleged perpetrator confess to a crime. Lie is a broad term, but, in fact, they can lie as long as it is not construed as coercion. An excellent article about limits on police coercion discusses if there are limits and what those limits, in a psychological context might be. This also begs the question, what about the jurors or judges who have to determine what is coercion and what is just a tactic to elicit a truthful statement from those being interrogated. So, in the context of law enforcement, “acceptable misguidance” is in fact, acceptable.

What is interesting is how polarizing a lie versus “acceptable misguidance” is now perceived in the media. However, lies in the media, and media lying are not a 21st century creation. In the founding of the United States, both “sides” took to printed handbills, papers, and books to bolster their base and promote their politics. In the latter part of the 19th century, Yellow Journalism, mainly the papers of Hearst and Pulitzer (Yes, that Pulitzer), was really the beginning of a frenzy of media hype. While the cause of the sensational headlines was a circulation war between the two moguls, it laid the groundwork for stretching the truth in media. This has not slowed down; several media outlets have stated that they have the ‘right to lie’ as guaranteed by the first amendment. It seems that courts agree and regularly do not convict liars on a regular basis. The onus is on the listener or reader to suss out the facts. It doesn’t matter what voice they are fighting to have heard, they can and do lie on a regular basis. It’s up to us to figure it out. Is this acceptable?

It goes without saying that our politicians lie on a regular basis. We have seen video or written “proof” of the lie, and it still lives on. Whether they see what they are saying as truth, or what someone else is saying as a lie, it does not bear repeating here that politicians words require a vast amount of vetting to make sure we get the “whole” picture. To answer the earlier question, does this have a place in enlightened discourse? Perhaps, if the lines are clearly drawn and the debates and discourse have a philosophical bent. Perhaps, if we’re discussing the larger ideas of life and not the character of another. Then again, perhaps not. Can we envision a world where politicians and their media outlets did not lie? Could we all “take” it?

Law enforcement. politicians. media…we are surrounded by acceptable misguidance. We can choose to listen or not, and we can choose to believe or be suspicious. Some find it easier to simply believe, and some find it exhausting to be suspicious all the time.

Why does this matter to the Freemason? It seems like a good deal, especially in the search for Truth. Do Freemasons lie? Most assuredly. Freemasons are human after all, and even a white lie to save the feelings of a friend happens. Yet, the search for Truth compels Freemasons to seek for more depth of the story, less human nature and more divine nature. If we choose to listen to the human story, we need to spend time to figure out the truth from the acceptable misguidance, and if we look even deeper, perhaps we can actually see the Truth of what is being said. In this way, perhaps acceptable misguidance is a test of our ability to seek and find that which is lost. Perhaps it is a reminder that we should question everything until we find the Truth inside.

Hidden Mysteries of Science

Hidden Mysteries of Science

Science is “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” We all perform scientific acts each and every day. Being aware and present in our actual work, home life, educational pursuits, and leisure all encompass some aspect of “science,” as described above. Do we not learn relationship interaction through observation and experimentation? Of course we do! Do we study others and then experiment with things like cooking, clothing ourselves, cleaning the house, and raising children? Absolutely. Life is science.

And yet… there are the science doubters. The Washington Post did an article, in 2015, on science doubters. Entitled, “Why is Science so Hard to Believe?” the article goes on to discuss confirmation bias, the discipline of the scientific method, and why so many people would rather believe media hype or misinformation from friends rather than actual science. Media is not science and it is not gospel. We consume the media that’s easy to consume rather than do the work for ourselves. It’s easier to doubt than to verify.

Neil deGrasse Tyson has an interesting quote: “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” He also said that “the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.” Both of these quotes speak to the hubris of humans – we think we know much more about the word than we really do.

In a quote from an article on National Public Radio, the author quoted his friend, a professor of Jewish philosopher, as saying “science tries to make magic real.” The author goes on to specifically outline activities, now commonplace human activities, as ones that we once thought of as magical, for example, flying. We fly without a second thought; yet, 500 years ago, to say one flew was heresy, possibly leading to death. Other examples are the knowledge of “invisible” animals capable of making humans ill, or being able to see great distances into space (the past) through a telescope. The ability for our phones to “think” and talk with us would have been quite astounding to the medieval mind.

The author continues his journey with the main difference between science and magic: his belief is that the power of magic originates within us, where as science’s power originates outside of humans. Science is a set of immutable laws of the universe. Right?

Well, no. Science updates theories based on knowledge gained from further expressions of the scientific method, and then new theories are postulated. Science is evolving, a never-stagnant set of data that we are constantly testing and proving or disproving. Magic is generally seen as not obeying the laws of nature, being outside of those “rules” or “metaphysical,” as it were. Yet, we’ve all said it: couldn’t what we see as magic just be unexplained scientific laws that we do not understand quite yet?

Why are Freemasons charged to examine and study nature and science? Nature AND science? It seems that it might be because the world is made up of both the understood and the mystery. We have many questions to answer about nature and we use science to get there. Perhaps we could say we have many questions to answer about magic and science is the method. There’s no reason we can’t have wonder and reason hanging out together in our minds. We can appreciate the brilliant stars and the awe of an eclipse and still want to know how it happens. Knowledge does not take away wonder.

I want to believe that perhaps science and magic are part of the same evolutionary cycle – what starts out as magic becomes understood by science, which breeds questions within our curious minds, wonder at something unknown, triggering us to embrace the tools of science to explore. Freemasons get to play in both realms, being co-creators on the path of humanity.