What’s a narrative ? A series, or a logical and plausible sequence of events which support an over-riding belief. It may or may not be supported by evidence or reflect the real world, or real events. And it may or may not be complete rubbish.

Christianity, in its many schismatic forms, provides many narratives. Islam provides many narratives. Every religion or ideology does. Usually a narrative is not, or is not necessarily, based on ‘truth’, or evidence, or any actual backing at all. It is BELIEVED, regardless of evidence - in fact, the mark of a true believer is to believe a narrative without any need for evidence: surrender to belief, to passion, ignore any need for ‘proof’.

Clearly, not every narrative can be ‘true’. From a non-believer’s viewpoint then, why believe ? Unless one is an ‘insider’ already, what is the basis for believing any plausible story over any other, and thereby be one the group ?

Would some evidence, one way or the other, strengthen a narrative ? After all, things happen and there is almost bound to be evidence of them, either forensic or documented. Evidence strengthens a narrative. But conversely, a sceptic would suspend belief unless he or she has just some scrap, an indication, that a particular story is ‘true’ - until some evidence is produced, and the more the better.

So, does one still believe, without any evidence ? Or suspend belief until some can be produced ?

Oral accounts, passed down even by the same person over decades, are liable to changes over time, bits that seem irrelevant are forgotten or dropped out, other bits ‘remembered’ or sort of re-fashioned. We’re all familiar with this from playing ‘Chinese Whispers’, or watching ‘Who Do You Think You Are ?’ Recipients of stories interpret them in their own way, and in their own times. Crave a royal ancestor, and one may well ‘appear’. These days, crave a convict ancestor and if you're lucky, you’ll find one.

It's the narrative of the Marxist mob I'm concerned about, Joe. Not much evidence or truth there. Religion used to be like that, but all the bogies and fear are now in the hands of the left, the left social engineers, who have infiltrated (or infested, if you like) everything we come into contact with: education, amusement and entertainment, the media etc. Their narrative is a 'siren song' that only the Alt Conservatives can resist. The old conservatives have, alas, been captured by it.

It is a mistake to Judge a belief by correlating its content with evidence. One should believe in a given narrative if and only if believing so can improve their character.

A narrative that helps one to become a better person, is never rubbish, but a thoroughly evidence-based scientific research that causes people to behave more like animals, is the ultimate rubbish.

What a good post, Joe!

I don't think it's possible to exclude the role of hypothesis in the mix as well. An hypothesis is derived from either extrapolation (outside what is clearly understood) or interpolation (logical reasoning within the bounds of what is certain) from known conditions. Knowledge advances on testing hypotheses from extrapolations and consolidates on testing interpolative ones. Both are important. The risk with only working within the bounds of what is known (purely deductive reasoning), however, is that it may leave us drawing conclusions that turn out to be wrong once knowledge expands to cover new ground.

For example, if I was to observe the sea conditions off Cairns during the winter months, I could collect a great deal of data and confidently state a range of expected wave heights, water temperatures, turbidity levels and so on. If I missed a few dates it wouldn't matter much, someone else could replicate the study next year or the year after, confirming my data is correct.

However, if a sailor planned to take a trip to Cape York during the summer months and relied on those findings to plan, the trip may well end disastrously. On the plus side, the data set would be expanded...

There's nothing wrong with the data, but in the wrong context (given the wrong narrative) it can be dangerously misinterpreted.

I think your religion analogy is really good as well. A great deal of religious dogma is essentially good data, but it is used to draw essentially faulty conclusions because it is applied outside the context in which the data was collected.

Thanks, this might be worth an article, you know.

Another view...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzLGPyd848w

Ttbn, yes, having been a Marxist for decades, I ruefully agree that Marxism provides a framework which may satisfy but ultimately doesn't really have a solid foundation based on reality: when its basic principles are tested, they either collapse or are qualified beyond recognition. The proletariat has NOT been constantly immiserated since the 1840s, not even on a world scale. The skills of the working class have NOT been constantly simplified and the proletariat become homogenised, quite the reverse. Any ephemeral dictatorship of the people has rapidly become the dictatorship of a Party, and thereby of the ruling group of a Party, and thereby of a single tyrant. I was named after one of them :)

Thanks, Craig, yes: because we can't know everything, we have to make inferences and propose hypotheses based on our pre-suppositions and suspicions. Of course, oppressed people, for example Indigenous people, may think that they have no way to investigate any suspicion and so would tend to build up an entire narrative, even an ideology, based on suspicions. Generally, if an hypothesis or stance seems reasonable, if it 'answers' our gut-feelings, our suspicions, then it will be seized on and built, brick by brick as it were, on further suspicions.

But there ARE ways of finding out, and certainly there are ways to test any hypothesis or suspicion about how and why conditions for Indigenous people are as they appear to be. In a sense, people work backwards: 'how do you explain current conditions for people (A) ? Because of B, C, D, ...... Why B or C or D ? Because of J, I, K, L ..... and ultimately back, in a pretty loose way, to colonialism, or capitalism, or white racism etc. Such a narrative may hang together very strongly, with each factor reinforcing the others, and without any need to be backed up by evidence.

But if

[TBC]