I think it's a dilemma of sorts to learn separating message from messenger, as it's like separating milk from water after both are combined together.
The reason why I said it's a dilemma of sorts because it's noticeable to me that messages are rarely presented as they are.
It's natural to stamp in our own thoughts and opinions into it to make the message slightly our own, which isn't really neither a problem nor not a problem per se without any given context.
But there are instances that you'll want to look at the value of an idea, or a piece of information, or even an argument to stand on its own merits, independent of who articulates it.
An example here is when evaluating scientific claims or moral arguments where the truth matters more than the source.
By the way, did you know that there's more oxygen in water than in the air, in terms of mass?
"Examine what is said, not who speaks" is an Arab proverb that serves as a crucial guiding principle here also.
In the realm of critical thinking, ad hominem considerations dictate that the primary emphasis should always be on the arguments, facts, and logical coherence of a message itself.
Say I had prefaced that oxygen-water fact by telling you I failed chemistry class(which I actually nearly did), would that change whether H2O molecules actually contain more oxygen atoms than the air around us?
Ad hominem fallacy is a logical error in reasoning where one attacks the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making an argument rather than their argument.
Our brains are wired for shortcuts, so it's much easier to dismiss an argument because the person making the argument is always wrong, too young/old, has a bad reputation, is from X political party or whatever the brain uses as a convenient filter for immediate dismissal.
Just because it's easy doesn't mean it's right. There's a very thin line separating quick judgment from lazy thinking.
Don't let your pre-existing opinions or biases about a speaker (their reputation, social status, identity, past actions, etc.) influence your assessment of the validity or truth of what they are saying.
History shows we've made this mistake of judging the messenger before the message, which eventually led to missing important truths and perpetuating harmful prejudices.
Galileo's heliocentric theory was dismissed because he challenged religious authority. Centuries later and it has been proved to be scientifically accurate.
By focusing on what is said, you open yourself up to a more complete understanding of any given situation.
Now, just as we shouldn't dismiss ideas based on who speaks, I think it's equally important to extend it to the other side too and also shouldn't blindly accept them because of who speaks (unless it's a domain expert presenting established facts within their field).
I mean, highly respected individuals can be wrong outside their expertise.
Arguably, Elon Musk's various public statements illustrate how expertise in one area doesn't automatically validate opinions in another.
We're all humans after all, flawed and capable of error regardless of our achievements.
With creative fields, it's quite hard if not impossible to judge a piece of art on its own merits, and not include the artist's personal life (or controversies).
Usually, it's the latter that influences how the former turns out and viewing only the art without the artist is like gazing at a tip of an iceberg.
At least, that's how it seems to me.
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.
