Shallow epistemology

On the need to think deeper

Thanks to ChatGPT for this sort-of relevant image.

In my inaugural post, I mentioned that I was relatively out of touch for several years (really, about a decade) for various personal and health reasons. Since about June of 2024, I underwent something of a metamorphosis in response to the upcoming election, intellectually at least. Since then, I’ve realized that just about forever, I was guilty of what I alluded to in my last post, specifically of being what people who share my philosophy (i.e., Objectivists) often are: the philosophy’s own worst enemy.

Specifically, my approach to various things was, in a word, facile. You’ll find me using that word quite a bit, in the sense of superficial, simplistic, and lacking depth. I’m also coining the term “shallow epistemology” to describe what I mean, which might (or might not) be a new way to refer to a well-known phenomenon. Think “shallow-minded,” only as a noun instead of an adjective.

What do I mean by shallow epistemology? First, epistemology is the branch of philosophy dealing with the acquisition and validation of knowledge. Basically, it’s how our minds work, and everyone has an epistemology (no matter how rational or irrational) just like everyone has a philosophy (no matter how explicit or implicit).

What I’ve identified lately, in both my “old” self and in various others, is that if reality is an onion, many people don’t peel past the first layer. I mean nothing mystical by that. Rather, I simply mean that the facts of reality are quite often more than just a layer deep. Often, the most readily available “facts” are the most simplistic and the least revealing of the truth. It’s the same with the logical connections that one should make between them.

I use “shallow” as a rhetorical tool, as a way to visualize my point. But if I was to be precise, I would say that the body of facts around a given question can be both deeper and broader than is obvious at first glance. And indeed, those most readily available “facts” often aren’t even true, or they’re so superficial as to create a completely false impression of reality. Those surface “facts” are often where propaganda thrives.

Conspiracy theories of the tinfoil hat variety can be the result — a person looks at one bit of disinformation or one isolated and trivial fact and spins out a narrative that is completely disconnected from reality. People look in the sky and see the contrails — lines of crystalized water vapor — behind a jet airliner, don’t know what they are, and fall for the conspiracy theory that the government pumps chemtrails of nefarious chemicals into the atmosphere. Such people could look just a little deeper or a little wider and discover the truth, but they don’t. And it’s no surprise that today, conspiracy theory has emerged from the shadows to dominate much of popular culture. We’re in a distinct post-truth phase.

It’s not just conspiracy theories, though. It’s a host of beliefs across the entire spectrum of human thought. Like I said, I’m not identifying anything new here, just giving my own name to it. If I were to make any claim within a historical context, I’d say that social media is built on the shallow epistemology and that social media memes are often symbols of its presence. It’s impossible to fully describe the facts behind a complex issue in a tweet or an image, but that’s what serves quite broadly today as the fuel for a great deal of thought. The results can be disastrous.

I came up with the name while trying to understand how I, myself, could have been so wrong about so many issues throughout my life — in spite of thinking I’ve been more thoughtful, more analytical than most. Ask my wife, and she’ll tell you that I can sometimes come across as overly analytical. But what I discovered is that in spite of all that, I sometimes hadn’t looked deep enough or widely enough. I didn’t know enough or the important facts, and because of it many of my conclusions have been… well… facile.

I perceive it now in other people as well. One example is how many Objectivists recently claimed (and bizarrely still do) that Elon Musk would fit Ayn Rand’s definition of a hero. I remember seeing one debate as to whether he’s more like Gail Wynand (actually more of a Randian anti-hero) or Howard Roark (one of Ayn Rand’s two greatest heroes). Don’t worry if you’re not familiar with those characters from Rand’s The Fountainhead. Just trust me that comparing someone to either of them would be high praise indeed.

The thing is, it didn’t take me long in digging into Musk to identify just how ridiculous was that debate — which I started to do in earnest as I noticed his growing support for Donald Trump and wondered about his transition from left-wing climate change warrior to right-wing propagandist (and worse). The more I looked, the more I discovered that not only is Musk not heroic by any rational standard, he’s an outright villain. For anyone to think that Ayn Rand would have considered him a hero, they must be either completely ignorant of the facts or completely ignorant of the works of Ayn Rand. Or both.

In truth, what I saw was the shallow epistemology at work. Those who see him as a hero are only vaguely aware of Tesla as a successful maker of electric vehicles and of SpaceX as a successful maker of cool rockets. Combine that with the Objectivist idea of productivity as a virtue and mix in some real or imagined glorification of mankind (rockets to Mars, how awesome!) and you end up with the idolization of a man who should be reviled. And all because of a failure to look a little deeper, to peel away the layers, to where the truth lies.

I only use Musk as an example. Certainly, I haven’t justified my position, but I’m working on an essay that will provide my rationale. It’s taking me a while, because my god, there’s so much there. For now, I just ask you to trust me a little that I’m not making anything up.

I’m going to work hard to fix my own shallow epistemology, which I’ve identified in more than a few of my long-held beliefs. And that work, and my belief in its importance, will be a feature of this Substack. So, stay tuned.