"The Truth Lies Somewhere in the Middle": Does It?
Moderation, in many camps, is fashionable. A belief in the wisdom of moderation
serves the purpose of containing perceived dangerous ideas by keeping them
"within accepted boundaries." Many people, when hearing two sides of a
debate, feel they are taking the rational position by making a compromise. The
rationale is that when you hear two parties at extreme ends on a given
principle, we tend to think that "the truth lies somewhere in the
middle." Is this really so? Let's consider a few points.
(1) The a priori correct conclusion is that there
are arguments being made for both sides, not that the truth lies somewhere
in the middle. Where do we go from there? Well, we must account for why there
are arguments being made on both sides:
(2) It is possible that both extremes are wrong, and that the
truth really is something somewhere "in between" the two opposing
extreme claims. Both sides are just "erring from the true (central)
truth."
(3) It is also possible that the truth is far more extreme
than either side is willing to discuss, but for some reason, views that are
dubbed "too extreme" are not being discussed. For instance, if you
lived in Nazi Germany, perhaps the "hard" position is that all Jews
should be destroyed, but the "soft" position is that Jews "just
shouldn't be allowed into positions of leadership authority." However, if
you don't think like a Nazi, you probably recognize that neither the
"hard" nor the "soft" position against Jews is morally
correct. A position that is outside of the "range of publicly acceptable
opinions," a position outside of what the Nazis considered to be
"within the accepted boundaries," is called for--not moderation.
(4) Sometimes the "moderate" position doesn't
really make sense. For instance, if person A claims that "the earth is a
spheroid," and person B claims that "the earth is a big flat
plate," one of the two is definitely wrong. And there is really no sensible
"in-between" position: how can the earth be "in between"
being a spheroid and being a plate?
(5) Sometimes the true differences in sides is a difference
in rationality or knowledge on the subject. Example: The Church excommunicated
Galileo on the idea that the view that "the sun revolves around the
earth" needs more respect.
(6) A better idea might be to say, "When I hear two
conflicting ideas, I don't know which one is correct. Unless one side is more
convincing, I can't assess the likelihood of either side being correct."
Here there is not a claim that "the truth is in between," but the more
rational position that "I can't tell which argument is correct."
This often underrated position of
deferring judgment stands as
an appealing third option to extremism and centrism.
(7) Usually what "the truth being somewhere in
between" can meaningfully amount to is that some claims similar to those at
both extremes are simultaneously true. For instance, consider the smoking
debate. At one extreme, some people say, "Smoking is good: it is fun."
At the other extreme, some people say that "Smoking is bad: it kills."
In reality, there is a hybrid, correct position: that (1) smoking has the good
aspect that is usually pleasant to smokers, and (2) smoking also has the bad
aspect that it often kills the people who do it.
(8) But the true appeal of saying that "the truth
usually lies somewhere in between" is not just based on a belief that
that's usually the case. For if that were the case, one side can simply win the
argument by making its claims increasingly extreme, so that the center is
"pulled" in its direction. Example: "The death penalty is
good" vs. "The death penalty is okay" leads to the moderate
position that "The death penalty is better than okay, but not quite
good." But if the latter side changes its claim to "The death penalty
is the single greatest act of barbarism in all civilized nations,"
then the moderate position is now something like, "The death penalty may be
bad, but not the worst thing in the history of civilization." The person
who believed that the death penalty is "okay" has won the argument,
just by exaggerating his side.
(9) The moderate position, far from being good evidence that
a person is being faithful to his convictions, might be taken as evidence that
the person is avoiding taking sides. This allows moderates to be "less
confrontational" by character, less likely to highly offend anyone. It may
be wise for a person to do such a thing in order for them not to disturb anyone
who would make a big ordeal out of a small disagreement. However, just because
the lack of confrontation may be a more pleasant choice of life, does not
mean that the moderate position is to be taken as more likely to be true.
To tie up these observations, let me conclude that (10) The
better alternative to moderation, when one really must know the truth, is the
following procedure: (a) See whether the fact that a given person is making an
argument is reason enough to take that claim seriously. (b) Consider the claim.
(c) Until one claim is found more convincing, express an uncertain
position (and withhold from concluding on whether the moderate belief is true or
false). (d) If neither claim seems totally true, create a possibly more
elaborate third claim which takes into account what the other claims don't. Or
more simply put, if two extreme positions are brought up, consider both
positions: discern what is right and wrong about both sides. Consider the
possibility that an unseen third position--not necessarily a moderate third
position, but very often the case--is the true position.