One-track Thinking and the 12th Man
One-track Thinking and the 12th Man
In the famous 1957 film "12 Angry Men," a judging panel made up of 12 men is presented: 11 are completely certain of the defendant's guilt, but the 12th man, on the other hand, casts doubt on this certainty and, after a long and complex debate, manages to convince all the others of the defendant's innocence.
This example is often used to show that even if the great majority of people believe a certain fact is true, it doesn't necessarily mean it is: sometimes, but only sometimes, a single person or a small minority who disagrees manages to prove, or more exactly, to convince others that it is, in fact, a false theory.
The issue concerns the progress of sciences and civilizations. If 11 men say A and the 12th says NOT A, there's an 11/12 probability that he is wrong. However, it can happen that he is right, not only one person out of 12 but maybe even a single person out of a million.
For example, until the 1600s, everyone was quite sure that the sun moved in the sky and that the earth was stationary. How could anyone doubt what everyone could see just by looking up at the sky? But Galileo, on the other hand, said it was stationary. Strangely, he was right.
And so, until the 1900s, everyone was quite sure that time was absolute; it seemed like an absolute truth that no one could possibly doubt: you can't go back and forth in time, and time passes for everyone equally. What could seem more certain? Yet a certain Einstein argued that time was relative, it depended on speed. Strange, but he was right.
Similarly, in politics, it seemed obvious that those who were prepared to govern should do so and that others should obey. Yet at a certain point, it seemed completely natural and obvious that the people as a whole should govern by choosing their leaders based on the program they presented.
The Dominant Thought and Mistrust
In every civilization and era, there is a way of thinking that is often called "one-track thinking" but which is actually just the dominant one and seems completely self-evident to the great majority.
It is often said that people conform to the majority out of self-interest, but sometimes not conforming can also be advantageous. The fact is that we are part of a group whose principles and knowledge we learned as children, and we therefore end up considering them obvious and certain. Furthermore, the need for sociality pushes us to conform to others so as not to be excluded. Those who question the beliefs of a group end up being marginalized.
The essential point is that if the 12th man says something different, one must examine what argument he brings to the table.
Truth in Science and Humanity
In the field of science, certain principles and methods are followed that allow us to establish what the truth is, but it is always relative to the experiments carried out up to that point, and it is never definitive.
As we were saying, until Einstein, it seemed certain that time was absolute, but now it seems certain that it is relative to speed: one day some scientist might state a third opinion, and then there will be doubt about relativity; new experiments will be carried out that may lead to a new theory, but in any case, we will never arrive at an ultimate and definitive truth.
In the human field (ethical, religious, political), however, an objective scientific methodology accepted by all is not possible. Unlike in the sciences, for example, it is not possible to objectively establish whether God exists or not. In fact, there are billions of people who believe that God exists and billions who believe that he does not. It is certainly not conceivable that all those billions of believers or atheists are all fools. Similarly, in the 20th century, we witnessed the struggle between fascisms, communisms, and democracies: one certainly cannot think that all those who believed in one of the three regimes were all stupid.
I would therefore conclude that in the sciences there are proofs (experiments) accepted by all that indicate the truth, albeit relative to that moment, while in the human sphere there are only arguments that each person can then evaluate differently. This is why atheists and religious people exist, as do supporters of this or that political regime. Everything depends on the principles one accepts and on the evaluations of the facts, which are always varied and subject to opinion.
The evaluation depends above all on culture: probably if I had been born in the time of Jesus at Pilate's appeal, I too would have voted for Barabbas.
Democracy and Dissent
Now, democracy can be superior to other regimes precisely because freedom of expression can reveal that what seems true sometimes, but only sometimes, is false. In absolutist and illiberal regimes, if the official truth is A, whoever says NOT A is punished, goes to prison, or even worse. In democracies, on the other hand, even if the majority believes in A, whoever believes in NOT A can freely support their position and perhaps later even convince the majority, as happens in the film mentioned earlier.
However, even in democracies, the 12th man can be ignored, mocked, marginalized, and this is also part of freedom. If everyone can say what they believe, the majority can express themselves against the dissenter, call them stupid or dishonest, and it is not that the dissenter should have preferential treatment: after all, it is much more probable that they are wrong.
But everything always comes back to experiments in the scientific field and to arguments in critical, ethical, and religious thinking. It is not that we can establish whether the dissenter is telling the truth or not, because if this were possible, then there would be no problem.
Let's also keep in mind that democracy is based on the majority: you do what the majority of people decide and, since the majority is incompetent, you do what the incompetent decide.
What the minority says is not important, at least until the minority becomes the majority. In reality, in the past and even today in many parts of the world, it is not believed at all that the majority should govern (through elections) but that the people prepared for that task should govern, chosen according to different principles and rules.