View Comments      Email Article       Printable Version

Published: June 15, 2008

Just say “I don’t know”

You don’t have to have an opinion on everything

Notes from a Cultural Madhouse

By Christopher Zehnder

One of the most liberating phrases in the English language is, “I don’t know.” Not only is it liberating, it makes for sanity.

It is a liberating phrase because it frees us from one of the heaviest burdens modern society lays on us – that of having to have an opinion on everything. Perhaps it is a function of the democratic ethos, this notion that each person needs to express an opinion on each and every topic, whether it be Brittney Spears’ love life, Barack Obama’s religion, or the causes of global warming; but needing to express an opinion presupposes a competency to judge the issue for which an opinion is sought. And none of us are competent to render even reasonable opinions on all the vast array of issues confronting us in our world.

That’s why, of course, we have experts. These folk are quite impressive, for from their agile fingers, like an old-time farmer’s sowing seed, fly scientific studies, statistics, academic papers, polls, newspaper articles, human interest stories, numbers and more numbers, all proving beyond what seems a reasonable doubt what the expert has set out to prove. All these seeds of propaganda fall on and wiggle their way into receptive and fertile minds and sprout a bumper crop of Public Opinion. The problem, of course, is that, while one expert is busy with his sowing, another expert will come along and broadcast his own scientific studies, statistics, academic papers, polls, newspaper articles, human interest stories, numbers and more numbers – all leading to conclusions opposed to those of the first expert. Which expert, in the end, is sowing wheat and which the tares? Who is to decide?

An example of this is the great blowout about global warming. If we listen to one group of experts, we hear that the earth’s overall temperature is rising, that rising temperatures will lead to devastation in many parts of the world, and that the rising temperatures are attributable to human activity. Another group of experts, however, might agree that the earth is warming and that this warming could cause problems; but they marshal out their own evidence to show that the warming is not attributable to human activity. There are variations on both of these positions, no doubt – such as the idea that global warming is actually a good thing overall – but these examples suffice to show the dilemma facing the common man. Relying on experts, what does he do when experts collide? To whom does he turn? Whose opinion should he make his own?

This is indeed a great burden, this need to form an opinion about something one knows nothing about. In order to know something about a topic such as global warming or the world supply of oil, one would have to engage in a good deal of study; but few people have the time for such study. And, even if they did have leisure to study one issue well enough to give a tentative, educated opinion about it, they are still confronted by a vast array of other issues about which they are asked to form opinions. No one, of course, can be even mildly conversant with every issue, or even a good few of them. So, what is a man to do when asked what he thinks about things even the experts can’t agree about?

The answer is very simple, and quite liberating. When asked what he thinks is causing global warming or whether we’ve reached peak oil or whether DDT is as dangerous as was claimed or any such business, one need only say, “I don’t know.” For he does not know. And, admitting his ignorance, he frees himself from the imposed duty of expressing an opinion. For one is not bound to do a thing impossible for him.

Now, in praising the virtue of the phrase, “I don’t know,” I am not excusing culpable ignorance. We should seek knowledge and understanding, for these are components of wisdom, an intellectual virtue. But while we can come to know a good deal about one thing, and have various levels of understanding about other matters, there will always be things we cannot know – either because they are beyond our ability or because we haven’t the leisure to investigate them. For these last, “I don’t know” is the only honest response. And, better yet, it precludes one’s saying something stupid and so exposing his ignorance.

But “I don’t know” serves another function. It makes us sane by bringing us back to ourselves. So many of the things we’re asked to form an opinion about are macro issues affecting The Nation, that all-pervading thing called The Environment, or that barely imaginable entity called The Planet. To a great extent, all these entities are abstractions, things we barely experience. We do not experience The Nation; we do not even experience California. We experience that little corner where we live. We experience our neighbors, friends, our family (or at least we should). The Environment may be one in some way, but we experience it as particular and many. The “environment” of the Tehachapi Valley, where I live, is quite different from that of the Antelope Valley, only 40 odd miles away. And even in the Tehachapi Valley, all sorts of factors (micro climates, soil types, the prevalence of winds and breezes).make for different natural environments. A frost one winter might destroy my neighbor’s apple crop while leaving mine unscathed.

If we can know anything about the natural environment, we can know that portion of creation we experience and how we and our neighbors interact with it. By starting with experience, we turn that old environmentalist slogan, “think globally, act locally,” on its head. More than that, we demonstrate its insufficiency. For we are not simply to reverse things -- to think locally to act globally – but we are to think locally in order to act locally.

An example of this is a campaign, Think Outside the Bottle, against bottled water that has attracted the support of some Catholic religious, such as the Franciscans. In arguing that we should content ourselves with local sources of water, Think Outside the Bottle points to what it claims is corporate seizure of water sources in Third World countries, depriving people in those lands of water for the sake of First World customers. The campaign also claims that in 2007 a billion barrels of oil (enough to fuel over 1 million American cars for a year) were used in making plastic bottles for water. Most of these bottles end up in landfills or as litter.

In assessing the claims made by Think Outside the Bottle, I am left with this quandary. Given what I have read about corporate practices in Third World countries, I can well believe that some companies may be exploiting water sources needed by locals elsewhere. The problem is, I don’t know this. I also don’t know anything about the barrel of oil to plastic bottle ratio, so I don’t know how to judge the claim that a billion barrels could have fueled cars rather than plastic bottle factories. If I were to think globally and act locally, I would start with such “facts” as these; but I can’t start with such facts, for I do not know them to be true.

What I do know is what effect cheap throwaways have on the place where I live. I have come across the litter on the streets, in the fields, in stream beds, piled at the base of stately old Valley Oaks. I have been to our local landfill and seen the great mounds of trash, to which cheap throwaways contribute. I have heard how our landfill will probably reach capacity in a few years and have reflected on how that would mean sending our trash to landfills in someone else’s neighborhood – exporting our refuse elsewhere so that someone else can be burdened with it. And all this so that we can have the convenience that throwaways give us. All this for what is essentially rank luxury.

One can act from such experience, for he has rather solid knowledge from which to act. He can resolve not to buy bottled water or individual packs of yogurt, to cut down on his own contribution to a local problem – which, of course, is not a problem only of one’s locality. This is just one example, of course, but it points to how starting from what one can know – from his own experience – can lead to acts that are conducive to the common good. It can even lead to actions that could have national or even global repercussions. Thinking locally could lead to acting globally. For, really, one only acts globally by acting locally.

But it all begins with the declaration, “I don’t know.” This phrase is not only liberating, it is rooted in humility -- and not simply because it confesses one’s insufficiency. Rather, it roots him again in the humus, the soil of his own being. “I don’t know” commences the return to sanity, wholeness, if, in understanding what we do not know, we return again to and begin to reflect on what we can know: the things of our experience.

© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.