Meta cognition is the practice consisting in trying to uncover why we think the way we do, what are the patterns behind what we think, identifying what is at the root of our thoughts and beliefs.
This field of study has recently regained an interest since it is believed that it can help address the rise in « conspiracy theories », « New Age » spirituality and various sects, obscure cults and gurus. The idea is that by asking oneself whether we are sure that what we believe is true, and how we can actually be sure, one might snap out of obscure and whimsical beliefs, and adopt a more “reasonable” point of view, come back to “facts”, what is “tried and true”.
But perhaps metacognition should be applied the same scrutiny, or in other words, questioning whether metacognition is a valid method for questioning one’s core beliefs. The problem with metacognition, is that it seems to posit that the process of self-enquiry is devoid of any methodological assumptions, any ideology, any epistemological framework which might in itself, be a bias.
Let us then plunge into metacognition and apply metacognition to metacognition: developing an awareness of the analytical framework through which one seeks to understand his/her own thoughts.
Here is a short thought experiment:
There was once a priest living in the 14th century. Religion no longer seemed to answer his existential concerns. He heard about this new worldview that had no clear outline yet. It was believed that some Greeks applied it, and then some other people living abroad as well. So he tried. He followed the protocols as best he could, but it didn’t work our for him. His experiments failed one after the other. And when he asked for help, he was told contradictory information and received unclear advice. Instead of telling himself that any emerging worldview is fuzzy, and that geniuses and charlatans both co-exist within such fuzziness, the priest decided to return to his monotheistic beliefs. He asked himself “why did I believe what I believed?” Except that this question only makes sense within a very specific worldview. Every question is tied to an analytical framework and a worldview. And so the priest fell back into the analytical framework of monotheism. After all, where was it written in the Bible that the empirical method is a legitimate way of understanding reality? Perhaps he had been tempted by Satan! That Satan is responsible for these crazy ideas and beliefs; that he could acquire and accumulate knowledge by observing nature and doing experiments! He felt guilty for having let himself be fooled by the glitter of a better life through the accumulation of knowledge. What heresy! He therefore applied the recognized and proven methodology of monotheism: if it is not written in the Bible, it is at best false, or at worst, a subterfuge of Satan. He subsequently launched an inquisition against all those so-called “men of science” who convey dangerous ideas such as the fact that knowledge will one day be able to liberate humanity. His fears took over. He already imagined other poor victims of this vision of the world. No one would be afraid of hell anymore, no one would aspire to go to heaven, it would be chaos, people would kill each other, steal, cheat and rape. Only the fear of divine punishment and the promise of a heavenly reward can save humanity! The priest had the king’s ear. He told the king about his experience and convinced him to launch a massive inquisition against these heretics.
We know the rest of the story. We cannot stop the natural course of evolution. Biological bodies evolve, so do paradigms. In the end, the Greeks were right: “There is nothing permanent except change”. Heraclitus.
Whenever you ask yourself the question of “why do I believe what I believe”, there is always an analytical framework in the background, enabling you to ask such a question. For instance, if you are operating from a monotheist vision of the world, and you ask yourself why you believe what you believe, you will check whether what you believe is in line with what the Bible teaches, and if some other thoughts spring up, you may see them as the malevolent doing of Satan or some other evil spirit tempting you away from the “truth”.
When you operate from a materialist science vision of the world, and ask yourself why you believe what you believe, the underlying analytical framework is that of empiricism. Is there empirical evidence for what you believe? Can it be falsified? But this is only because we do not call into question empiricism itself, its legitimacy, in determining what is “true” (or tentatively true until proven otherwise) from what is “false” (not falsifiable or inconclusive), and its ability to create what we call “facts”. Via a strictly monotheist lens, empiricism has no legitimacy whatsoever. Whatever “facts” or laws you may identify, only are what they are because God decided that that’s what they are. And if God decided to do so, He could change it all with the snap of a finger. Only what is written in his Holy book can be deemed the “truth”.
The problem, then, is essentially that any attempt at metacognition will simply “reset” you to the default consensus belief system of the society you live in. It’s a way to bring the lost sheep back into the fold. It is therefore inherently reactionary or conservative and does not favor exploring new theories or ideas/beliefs. Yet, this goes against all of what we know of history and the development of all our ideas/beliefs/paradigms. Most societal advances were not based on “facts” or people that systematically picked apart what they believed to ensure that it was “validated” by whatever consensus analytical framework existed in society. These changes came about, on the contrary, with people that blindly followed their beliefs, not caring whether they were “right” or “wrong”, but based on some form of inner conviction, based on their own frame of reference, their own internal logic, gut feeling or intuition.
There are so many examples of this, but let’s settle for a few. For instance, the theory of continental drift was categorized for a long time as “pseudoscience”. Yet Alfred Wegener, the person who formulated this theory, spent his entire life defending it. Thank God he didn’t apply the “metacognition” method to himself, or we would have lost precious time in advancing… science. Metacognition can therefore actually be redefined as a form of “auto-brainwashing” mechanism, formatting your mind to bring you back into whatever the consensus reality is. Another notable example: Ludwig Boltzmann. This Austrian physicist greatly contributed to physics in kinetic theory, and the assumption that matter was composed of atoms and molecules. Yet he met such a resistance and criticism to his work that it contributed to driving him mad, which eventually led to his suicide. Science is thus just as stubborn and conservative as any other paradigm. Proposing a new scientific theory can be just as difficult as proposing a new interpretation of the Bible. Sure, it has not led to the equivalent of religious wars, like between the protestant church and the catholic one. Rather, scientists who do not abide by the current scientific consensus will be “excommunicated” one way or another (see for instance, the work of Rupert Sheldrake who has been a pariah in the eyes of the science church).
But there are many more examples of radical advances, in our own societies, which were based on pure leaps of faith. For instance, when our modern nation states transitioned out of monarchies of divine right to representative democracies, how did this process happen? Did the people carry out double blind, random trials and experiments where they set up representative democracy in one town, while keeping the current order of nobles and aristocrats in another town of similar population, location, economy etc, and then compared the results over a 40 year period of time (to ensure to gather enough “evidence” and “data”), and then came with their million page report to the king of the time and said: “Your majesty, we humbly present the results of our research, and since it concludes that democracy has better results in X number of measurements and parameters we have identified as relevant, you should step down as king and let us install a representative democracy throughout the kingdom.”?
Yeah, no.
The switch was driven by people who were intimately convinced that they were right, based on a number of ideals that they had adopted all by themselves. Philosophers like Kant or Rousseau are among those who proposed such ideals, but outside of the analytical framework of the monotheist world view. They created their own analytical framework by which to measure the value or relevance of ideas/beliefs.
And in the example above, it becomes clear what metacognition is really about: power and responsibility. When the priests had the ear of the king, when a certain paradigm marries itself to the institution which holds the right of the monopoly of violence, there is no letting go of that kind of power. When a cataclysm or other great problem struck a kingdom some 500 years ago, who did the king call to advise him on the matter? Men of “science”, or men of the church? Today, when a pandemic hits or when we collectively face any kind of challenge such as climate change, who does our government call for advice? Priests? Rabbi? Philosophers? Spiritual leaders? Gurus? Or do they call “experts” (as in scientific experts) on whatever the problem seems to be related to? When governments all over the world decided to opt for confinement and wearing masks, who did they call for advice? Epidemiologists. You might think that this is completely legitimate, of course. But is it, though? The only reason one would say it’s legitimate is because he/she is convinced that empiricism and rationality is the only valid methodology for making any kind of collective decision. And obviously, whenever someone holds power, they are unwilling to let it go.
But it’s also about responsibility or actually the lack of it. Whenever one is convinced of holding the “truth”, it grants them immunity for their actions. For instance, when priests launched the inquisition, they didn’t feel like they were responsible for their horrible actions because they were acting according to the will of God. Seeking absolute truth is a way to ensure you can’t be blamed for whatever the consequences of such a truth are. For instance, rapists would have certainly liked that the Bible said it was OK to rape someone, as it would have exonerated them from being punished for their crime. Nowadays, science is used in a similar fashion. When a government or centralized authority imposes a series of measures based on “the best available evidence”, then it exonerates itself from any “collateral damage” of such measures, since they simply took the “best” course of action available to them at the time. This has become clear with the COVID19 pandemic and the mandatory vaccination of entire populations: the small percentage of people who developed severe secondary effects or even died from the vaccine are considered to be unavoidable “collateral damage” for which no one can be blamed. The lesson to be learned is that ultimately, if humans seek a universal truth, be it through statistically significant studies/research or through the “word of God”, it is because they don’t want to take responsibility for their decisions and actions. This applies to any worldview as a matter of fact. People who are in “New Age” spiritual sects will also exonerate themselves from taking responsibility for their actions under the excuse that “Jesus” or another spirit told them to do X or Y in a channeled message. None are better than the other. All worldviews, thus far, have been about finding out or uncovering a fundamental truth or law, so as to know how one can make decisions that he/she cannot be blamed for. This is also why, in the 19th century, some people published dubious scientific research that was meant to prove that black people were inferior to white people, which would legimize racism. Science is instrumentalized constantly to justify ones’ ideology. And sure, it has been “debunked” after a while, just as a radical interpretation of the Bible for justifying witch burning has been “debunked”. But that’s missing the point. Humans are constantly busy trying to find out how to do things without having to take responsibility for them or ensuring they are “never wrong”. That is what fundamentally motivates the search or quest for a fundamental truth: to convince a large group of other humans to do what you recommend, but if it goes wrong, to be able to point to a “fundamental truth” in order to deflect the blame. A much better approach is to recognize that there is no fundamental truth, and let people freely choose a worldview that suits them, and what they want to experience, taking responsibility for the consequences of such a worldview. For instance, if some crazy person proposes an ideology which glorifies rape and you join it, it would be just as crazy to complain once you’ve been raped yourself.
With regards to the danger of sects, cults, and the “New Age” movement, it isn’t the “spiritual” methodology or the worldview that poses problems to people that defend the materialist camp. It is about projecting oneself in a reality where such a “New Age” worldview becomes the norm, and extrapolating what it would lead to. In the initial thought experiment, the priest was terrified of what a scientific worldview would bring about: total chaos, people killing each other because they were no longer scared of going to hell, and so on. Today, people that propose to apply metacognition and critical thinking to counter a resurgence of spirituality, do it for those same reasons. Not to “fight for the truth”, because ultimately, no one really cares what the “truth” is. People only care how whatever “truth” is, will impact them and their daily lives. And if they don’t like it, they will fight it, with whatever methodology they have at their disposal: “it’s not written in the Bible” becomes “it’s not empirically proven”. What they are really saying is: “I’m scared of a world where everyone believes in the church of scientology, and the ideas they propose, and it’s not a world I want to live in”. And that’s totally fine. Actually, if it were argued like that, perhaps it would be much better received than to go about it using metacognition as a “tool”. Sharing why you are scared, personally, about the implications of a certain worldview taking over humanity is the most authentic thing to do. And then, it’s about fighting such a fear rather than annihilating a worldview altogether. For instance, rather than fighting the scientific worldview, the church could have focused on denouncing detrimental philosophical interpretations of a pure materialist worldview, such as utilitarianism (a certain interpretation of it), which uses a cold methodology in making decisions without taking values, ethics or more human factors into account. “Science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul” to quote Rabelais. And indeed, during the two world wars of the 20th century, one could see just how important such seemingly naïve principles like “love thy neighbor as thy self” were, or what the lack of morality and ethics (which are outside of empiricism) could bring about.
In other words, the current people peddling metacognition, and defending true science and facts against fake news and conspiracy theories, should openly discuss what they dislike inside the worldviews they denounce, and how they believe reality would look like if such a worldview would become the norm. Science does have some nice tools, such as applying a certain rigor to your thoughts, beliefs and theories. This can be useful, not to throw out your existing beliefs and reset you back to a materialistic worldview, but to dig deeper and make whatever worldview you’re holding stronger and more profound, as opposed to superficial and brittle. Just as the ethical principles and values inside the Bible weren’t meant to make people leave their scientific worldview, and join the monotheist worldview, but rather help them avoid the nihilistic trap that a purely mechanical view of reality can lead to, where one treats other humans as just soulless talking sacks of meat, that one can dispose of given the right mathematical formula, or in other words, when the ends are used to justify the means.
There is one last thing that needs to be addressed. Whenever a new paradigm or worldview emerges, it often doesn’t come with a clear methodology or process to assess itself. Today, the catholic church is a very well organized institution, with lots of body of knowledge about the interpretation of the sacred texts, which provides a certain stability. Priests are trained according to well established teachings. In science, universities are the guardians of the empirical method. Students are asked to demonstrate their ability to think accordingly, to distinguish what is a scientific fact from an anecdote or hear-say, and to formulate theories and carry out experiments to validate these theories according to the empirical method of research. Furthermore, there are many “filters” in place to distinguish science from non-science, such as the peer-review process in academic publications/journals.
However, in spirituality, as of yet, I have not found a single clear and straightforward methodology which helps people self-assess or review their “spiritual” beliefs or worldview. And that is, in my view, at the heart of the problem. Ultimately, developing such a framework could enable people to apply “metacognition”, but in a way that isn’t conservative or reactionary, resulting in the abandonment of one’s beliefs not based on empirical evidence. For the moment, there are only two methods inherited from religion and science that can act as temporary guardrails when one dives into spirituality: the lessons inherited from religion (basic ethical principles such as “do onto others as you would have done onto you”) and from science (do not stop at superficial explanations, but try to be more thorough when picking your beliefs).
I have already written a book called “Mother Earth’s final push”, where I explore a worldview which could be labelled as “spiritual”. But I do intend to work on a book which will serve the specific purpose of creating a framework to assess spiritual beliefs, because I am certain it will be critical in the coming future in order to sort out the mess inside the current “New Age” and other sectarian spiritual chaos.
My latest book, Mother Earth’s final push, can be found here: https://www.amazon.com/Mother-Earths-final-push-humanitys/dp/B0BLR6YXND
