hanzosbm
Premium Member
Chances are, if you're a Mason, you've done some research. You may not have submitted a paper to Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, or even written a paper for your lodge, but you've probably at least read a book or two on Masonic topics. During the course of that research or even just talking to other brothers, it has probably become quite obvious that our history and origins are a bit of a mystery. No doubt, you've heard many different ideas about where Freemasonry came from. And, if you've done much research and thought about what you're reading objectively, it's almost certain that you've come across a theory or two (or 20) that doesn't quite seem to stack up. So, what's happening here and why am I writing this post?
In general, most research is carried out (ideally) using the scientific method. For those who might need a reminder, the scientific method has a number of steps used for research. The first is to posit a question. "Where did Freemasonry come from?" for instance. The question itself isn't important for our discussion. The next step is to state a hypothesis. "Freemasonry was introduced by aliens". At this point (and this is important), the hypothesis shouldn't be all that important. Well that seems like a strange statement. The hypothesis is the basis for all of our research, surely it has to be very important. It's not, and not only will I tell you why, but I'll also explain why this misunderstanding is so dangerous. But I digress. The next step after the hypothesis is stated is to collect data about your hypothesis. After this is done, the data is analyzed to determine if the facts support or refute your hypothesis. This is another hugely important step and here is one of the biggest difficulties that researchers have; they must try their hypothesis by the square of facts and present them in an unbiased nature. From there, a conclusion is made. Either the facts support the original hypothesis and this is stated, or they don't. Now, here is the important part that is too often missed and why I said that the hypothesis isn't all that important. If the facts do not support the hypothesis, the hypothesis should be amended and the cycle resumes, or the research is presented as a disproved hypothesis. If the former, then the cycle repeats until the hypothesis eventually fits the facts.
The problem is, that's not the way we typically see it working. Rather than amending the hypothesis until it fits the facts, we see authors amending the facts until it fits their hypothesis. Of course, we all know how damaging this is. It is the cause for the dissemination of so much misinformation that seems to be the norm in our society today. But why do they/we do this? Let's look back at that scientific method and assume that a researcher put forth a hypothesis, found data, analyzed it, and determined that the facts do not fit the hypothesis. Well, we all know that the right thing to do is to abandon the hypothesis. So, if the researcher was going to do the right thing, they would either publish their findings by publically announcing 'I was wrong' or they would start all over again with a new hypothesis. Researchers who state that their hypotheses are wrong might be doing good work, but their books aren't best sellers and they don't get invited to go on talk shows. Not only that, but some people see it as a shot to their ego. Why? Because they become emotionally attached to their hypotheses. They have shifted the priority away from finding truth and onto being right. So why not have both? Why not amend the hypothesis until it is proven right? Well, first, because that could take a VERY long time. Some books might take a lifetime to write so the idea of abandoning all of that work and starting over is just too much for some people. Second, because they have become emotionally attached to the hypothesis and refuse to let it go, regardless of the evidence. And third, and the crux of this discussion, because they might not be able to find an answer. This possibility strikes at all of the negatives discussed here. To say 'I don't know' means you must not only abandon a hypothesis that you might have grown attached to, but you're not even going to have a new one to cling to. This also means that all the work that you've put into it up to this point has not yielded a conclusion. In addition, nobody is going to listen to an interview or buy a book without a conclusion. And finally, because it is a huge blow to one's ego to publically admit that they don't know. And yet, it is a fact that there is a great deal that we do not know and will never know.
Sadly, this fear of admitting that we don't know something and stating it honestly has created layers upon layers of misinformation. I was recently researching a topic and came across some information that took me by surprise. Upon looking up the source, I found another book referenced. That book referenced yet another, and another, and another. When I finally reached the bottom of this particular rabbit hole, I found that all of these references were drawn on a VERY shaky conclusion made in a book that had never been taken seriously in the first place. But, even though it wasn't a fact, it supported someone's hypothesis, so they turned a blind eye to the facts to make them fit their hypothesis. Of course, to be fair, I have to ask myself, if that particular piece of information had not been so damaging to my own hypothesis, would I have dug as deep as I did to discover its illegitimacy?
We need to be honest with ourselves and with each other. Research is about finding truth, not getting our way. We need to become emotionally unattached and humble enough to present our findings. If everyone did this, it would allow for us to build on the honest research of others and for later generations to build on our honest research. I know that the day will never come that research can be trusted without any skepticism, but we can all do our part, and it begins with accepting that it's okay to say, 'I don't know'.
In general, most research is carried out (ideally) using the scientific method. For those who might need a reminder, the scientific method has a number of steps used for research. The first is to posit a question. "Where did Freemasonry come from?" for instance. The question itself isn't important for our discussion. The next step is to state a hypothesis. "Freemasonry was introduced by aliens". At this point (and this is important), the hypothesis shouldn't be all that important. Well that seems like a strange statement. The hypothesis is the basis for all of our research, surely it has to be very important. It's not, and not only will I tell you why, but I'll also explain why this misunderstanding is so dangerous. But I digress. The next step after the hypothesis is stated is to collect data about your hypothesis. After this is done, the data is analyzed to determine if the facts support or refute your hypothesis. This is another hugely important step and here is one of the biggest difficulties that researchers have; they must try their hypothesis by the square of facts and present them in an unbiased nature. From there, a conclusion is made. Either the facts support the original hypothesis and this is stated, or they don't. Now, here is the important part that is too often missed and why I said that the hypothesis isn't all that important. If the facts do not support the hypothesis, the hypothesis should be amended and the cycle resumes, or the research is presented as a disproved hypothesis. If the former, then the cycle repeats until the hypothesis eventually fits the facts.
The problem is, that's not the way we typically see it working. Rather than amending the hypothesis until it fits the facts, we see authors amending the facts until it fits their hypothesis. Of course, we all know how damaging this is. It is the cause for the dissemination of so much misinformation that seems to be the norm in our society today. But why do they/we do this? Let's look back at that scientific method and assume that a researcher put forth a hypothesis, found data, analyzed it, and determined that the facts do not fit the hypothesis. Well, we all know that the right thing to do is to abandon the hypothesis. So, if the researcher was going to do the right thing, they would either publish their findings by publically announcing 'I was wrong' or they would start all over again with a new hypothesis. Researchers who state that their hypotheses are wrong might be doing good work, but their books aren't best sellers and they don't get invited to go on talk shows. Not only that, but some people see it as a shot to their ego. Why? Because they become emotionally attached to their hypotheses. They have shifted the priority away from finding truth and onto being right. So why not have both? Why not amend the hypothesis until it is proven right? Well, first, because that could take a VERY long time. Some books might take a lifetime to write so the idea of abandoning all of that work and starting over is just too much for some people. Second, because they have become emotionally attached to the hypothesis and refuse to let it go, regardless of the evidence. And third, and the crux of this discussion, because they might not be able to find an answer. This possibility strikes at all of the negatives discussed here. To say 'I don't know' means you must not only abandon a hypothesis that you might have grown attached to, but you're not even going to have a new one to cling to. This also means that all the work that you've put into it up to this point has not yielded a conclusion. In addition, nobody is going to listen to an interview or buy a book without a conclusion. And finally, because it is a huge blow to one's ego to publically admit that they don't know. And yet, it is a fact that there is a great deal that we do not know and will never know.
Sadly, this fear of admitting that we don't know something and stating it honestly has created layers upon layers of misinformation. I was recently researching a topic and came across some information that took me by surprise. Upon looking up the source, I found another book referenced. That book referenced yet another, and another, and another. When I finally reached the bottom of this particular rabbit hole, I found that all of these references were drawn on a VERY shaky conclusion made in a book that had never been taken seriously in the first place. But, even though it wasn't a fact, it supported someone's hypothesis, so they turned a blind eye to the facts to make them fit their hypothesis. Of course, to be fair, I have to ask myself, if that particular piece of information had not been so damaging to my own hypothesis, would I have dug as deep as I did to discover its illegitimacy?
We need to be honest with ourselves and with each other. Research is about finding truth, not getting our way. We need to become emotionally unattached and humble enough to present our findings. If everyone did this, it would allow for us to build on the honest research of others and for later generations to build on our honest research. I know that the day will never come that research can be trusted without any skepticism, but we can all do our part, and it begins with accepting that it's okay to say, 'I don't know'.
