Both Oars In Empiricism and the boogeyman

Dec 3, 2010

I remember a lot from eighth grade science. I owe this to our teacher, Mrs. Archer, who used mnemonics to help us to learn the basic principles that govern the world around us. She taught us GREMB for the definition of a living organism and FARBM for the evolutionary development of animals. I especially remember learning the six steps of the Scientific Method: Identification, Investigation, Hypothesis, Observation, Experimentation and Conclusion. The acronym for this has a poetic sound: “IIHOEC”—you have to pronounce the I’s as long, the E as short and the C as hard to make it really sing.

Thirty years older and with ten more years of education, I still remember IIHOEC; it is, along with the “ends do not justify the means,” one of the intellectual principles I make use of regularly. I have found since I have become a missionary in a puzzling and sometimes volatile country, that many of the confusing things that occur in a developing nation, particularly problems with plumbing, electricity and politics, become clearer when I apply IIHOEC.

Having studied philosophy as part of my major at a university a lot of people “ooh” and “ah” over for its intellectual rigor (even if I do not), I could claim that it was my study of Locke that formed the foundation of my empirical approach to solving problems. However, just as Locke owes much to Aristotle, I cannot honestly credit my university for what I learned much earlier and more simply from Mrs. Archer.

Whether we call it a method or philosophy, drawing conclusions based on one’s actual experiences usually beats postulating theories based on mere assumptions, preconceptions, speculations or past history—no matter how well-founded and convincing the past history may be. Certainly, there are limits to the breadth of the concepts that our senses can understand directly, just as there are limits to the clarity and level of completeness that physical observation can provide. Still, I have found it pays to identify the problem, investigate, hypothesize and test the hypothesis before leaping.  

I cannot help but think that a more empirical approach to examining the circumstances surrounding Sunday’s election in Haiti would have helped to clarify the situation. Instead, with little to go on and many facts missing, not the least of which were the results, a momentary gaggle of otherwise intelligent, well-meaning and sincere presidential candidates described the ongoing election as failed or severely flawed.

However, before we are too critical of the candidates’ possible misstep or at the very least the prematurity of their accusations, let’s keep in mind that democracy is only 4.5 presidential elections old in Haiti. Open elections are still in the developmental stage. They are beta at best. We in the United States have had more than ten times as many elections without achieving perfection. Over two hundred years into the process, our candidates still cry foul—sometimes with good reason.   

It is also important to acknowledge that candidates themselves, not presidents, create the opportunity for democracy to occur. Out of respect for this, we should emphasize Haiti’s presidential candidates’ positive contribution to the matter at hand, not their possible eleventh-hour error. Put into the context of their tireless campaigning, the candidates’ strong reaction to the unexpectedly low turn-out, at least in the Port au Prince metropolitan area, and the predictable but troubling chaos at the polls, is understandable. It is also true that they may need to turn their criticism on themselves for not inspiring a larger turn-out, but that is for down the road. Right now, given the hurt, I suppose it just too much to be self-critical.  

To be fair, we must also keep in mind that elections have actually been stolen in Haiti—wholesale even. Duvalier’s re-election and the later referendum making him president for life are two clear examples. When it comes to stolen elections, there are precedents to consider. It is understandable why Haitians’ default position is that every election has a boogeyman.      

However, the boogeyman’s power lies in our unwillingness to actually check if he is there or not. This is where empiricism comes in handy. In this case, this means voting. It may also mean taking the time to forensically examine the ballots cast. The boogeyman only really disappears when we become courageous and mature enough to walk over and open the closet. If we do not, the boogeyman, real or imagined, will continue to influence our decisions and limit our freedom.

|