Truth is not necessary for people to become persuaded

The Thursday Dispatch editorial “As Facebook seeks out fakes, so must we” rightly notes that false and harmful content on social media can spread like “destructive wildfire.”

But why are falsehoods persuasive? In Phaedrus, a dialogue by Plato, that question is addressed. (Socrates refers to orators, but the comments can also include writers.)

Socrates: “Won’t someone who is to speak well and nobly have to have in mind the truth about the subject he is going to discuss?”

Phaedrus: “What I have actually heard about this, Socrates, my friend, is that it is not necessary for the intending orator to learn what is really just, but only what will seem just to the crowd who will act as judges. Nor again what is really good or noble, but only what will seem so. For that is what persuasion proceeds from, not truth.”

Fortunately, a few paragraphs later, Socrates cites a Spartan, who said, “There is no genuine art of speaking without a grasp of truth, and there never will be.”

The editorial properly urged us “to be discerning consumers of information from all sources.”

Socrates has some advice on that point, too.

In another dialogue, he declares that “the unexamined life is not worth living.”

That statement can be interpreted in various ways. One of them is that it is essential to ask questions and seek the truth.

For example, when you hear or read a fact, ask yourself, how does the speaker or writer know that? In other words, what’s the evidence?

And when you hear or read an opinion, ask yourself, why does the speaker or writer think that? In other words, what’s the logical thought pattern to support that view?

Brad Bradford, Upper Arlington

Society is so eager for a vaccine that we could rush at our peril

Not being aware of any person who is not in favor of ending this horrific pandemic as soon as possible, do we need to evaluate the postulation that sooner is better for a vaccine? For the first time ever, to my knowledge, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is suggesting that a vaccine, this time a COVID-19 vaccine, might be made available before the usual safety and efficacy trial time has passed.

Understandably, the first recipients will be health care providers, which makes perfect sense, or does it? God (or Goddess) forbid that health problems appear because no long-term safety had been accomplished before distribution.

Could those champions and guardians of our health possibly face serious consequences for themselves, their families and our system by rushing the process?

Simply put, is it worth the risk?

Phil Oleson, registered pharmacist, Columbus