“Oh, yeah?!? Prove it!” So the theme throughout these recent posts has been to explore what is meant by “Prove it!”
*I take it as a given that we all interpret “Oh, yeah” as a big, round, red man crashing through a wall. I am speaking, of course, about Andy Reid (coach of the NFL’s Kansas City Chiefs).
I settled on one of Reuben Hersh’s definitions of proof: “an argument that convinces qualified judges.”*
*I had another math teacher tell me that he preferred one of the other definitions. I agreed that this definition is one of the weaker ones when defining proof in the strict context of mathematics. However, I prefer the above definition for the much broader, common use of the term proof in everyday conversation. The teacher saw what I meant and granted the point. Unfortunately for me, he only understood after the fact–meaning that I guess I didn’t do as good a job of clarifying what I meant the first time around. Mea culpa.
The last post gave an argument for a return to the original meaning of the word…argument.
Here we will take a look a the word convince. As per our usual arrangement, I will break down the word into its original components, thus sucking the life out of this post.
Surprisingly, the prefix con- does not mean “member of the opposite political party.” It means, in fact, simply…”with.”
Let me* park here for a bit…
*Yes, this is purely rhetorical. It’s my blog, and I’ve already received your $0 subscription fee. So Imma do what I want…[blows raspberry]…
Think of how much that prefix illuminates our understanding of the word conscience–especially if you consider what the word science actually means. Once we get to the “pure reason v. scientific method” spectrum first mentioned several posts ago, we will really get into the details of the scientific method.
For now, though, I’m just going to ask you to trust me concerning the following somewhat surprising concept: the word science literally just means “knowledge.”
Thus, the word conscience literally means “with knowledge.” Have you ever noticed how often you “just know” something is wrong, but you have no idea why?* But, is it just me, or have you also noticed that just about every time that you listen to the voice that “just knows,” you later find out why that thing was wrong?
*And, if you’re like me, you’ll just foolishly plow ahead and do the wrong thing anyway. Paul, neatly summarizing my entire life: “The evil which I would not, that I do….O wretched man that I am!” (Rom. 7:19, 24)
Basically, as we age, we are to rely less and less upon that “little voice” that helps us the times that we lack “factual” knowledge of right and wrong and to rely more and more upon what we learn as we mature.
In other words, the conscience is a wonderful thing, but woe to the one who keeps “flying blind” only by his conscience. The conscience is only at its best when it is accompanied “with knowledge.” In fact, my most important job as a parent is to teach my children right from wrong–everything else is just a bonus. Let me again cite the Shema: “And thou shalt teach them [i.e., God’s commandments] diligently unto thy children” (Deut. 6:7).
Of course, knowing what is right (wisdom) and actually doing what is right (discipline) are two completely different things. The following, widely attributed to Teddy Roosevelt (though I cannot find a solid citation), summarizes this very well:
“Knowing what’s right doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.”
So…please forgive that digression, but let me remind you that the whole point of this blog is basically to write to my kids. And, frankly, if my kids ignore everything in this post except for the last few paragraphs, I’ll be thrilled.
Now let’s return to the definition of convince. As I spent way too long discussing, the prefix con– means “with.” But what about vince? This comes from the Latin word vincere, meaning “conquer” (i.e., victory).
Perhaps you now respond, “Aha! I knew it! To ‘convince’ someone means to win!”
Well…congratulations! You’ve learned nothing!
Victory does mean “winning,” but convince effectively means “winning with.” In other words, you do not convince someone by winning against that person, you convince someone by winning with that person.
Of course, the whole notion of “winning” (whether “with” or “against”) still implies a contest of sorts. And here–in the context of proof–the contest is in the realm of ideas.
For example, Person A has an idea that differs from that held by Person B. Even if Person A goes forward with the best and kindest of intentions, there will necessarily be some clash of ideas.
But, if genuine convincing is the goal, Person A is not trying to win against Person B–he is trying to win with Person B. The ultimate goal is to have Person B go forward with Person A as part of the same team rather than going with one as the “victor” and the other as the “vanquished.”
And if Person A ever has an “I was right, and he was wrong” mentality, then true convincing was never the goal: sheer, brutal “winning” was the only goal.*
*And, frankly, that has become the sad state of the Church today. We are far more interested in showing that someone has the wrong moral position than we are convincing them** to accept Christ.*** And we have the audacity to call that “winning.” A lost “moral” person is still lost.
**Yes, I know that the Spirit does the convincing, but “How shall they hear without a preacher?”
***And, yes, I know the worn-out adage, “You have to get them lost before they can be saved.” We’re much more interested in letting them know they’re lost than we are in having them be saved.
For a concrete example, consider that right now I am trying to convince you of some idea. In this case, the very “meta” idea of convincing you about the meaning of convince. And now I am in the very awkward position of acting as if I have a better understanding of the word convince than you do.
Obviously I have to tread lightly now because we have this ridiculous notion that “knowledge = worth.” How stupid is that? Am I a “better person” than my students because I know more math than they do?* Am I a “better person” than my kids because I know more than they do? Is “Joe” a better person than “Frank” because Joe knows more about carburetors?
*Can you think of how awful the class would be if I did NOT know more math than they do?
But, unfortunately, that’s the world we live in today: one that thinks every discussion of ideas is a battle of self-worth, and we sadly think that the statement “I know something that you don’t” equals “I’m better than you.” That notion is sheer nonsense, but sheer nonsense seems to be our world’s motto.
Regardless, I need to tread lightly throughout this whole process because I want to convince you of something rather than just “browbeat” you into acceptance. As in the Persons A/B example above, I want both of us to go forward as part of the same team rather than as “victor” and “vanquished.”
And, to be honest, I hate the “team” illustration that I’ve used throughout this post because we just cannot seem to separate it from the tribal “Us v. Them” notion that infects every aspect of our lives.
But throughout this post, I hope I’ve avoided setting up a “Team I-Know-What-Convince-Means” v. “Team You-Don’t-Know-What-Convince-Means” battle. Because it’s NOT a “battle”: the definition of convince is just an idea and most of us just haven’t had the opportunity to really dig down and find out what it means.
So, returning to the beginning, if I’m trying prove something to someone, I can only do it if I convince him of that idea. And I hope I was able to genuinely convince you of this idea…
…because if I didn’t, I’ve got NO shot of succeeding in the next post. Why? Well, in that post we’re going to look at the last part of the definition of prove: “an argument that convinces qualified judges.”
If I can’t convince you of the meaning of convince, it’s going to be a bloodbath trying to convince you of what it means to be qualified.
But (literary) bloodbaths can be fun to watch. Who doesn’t like watching someone not just fail, but fail in epic fashion? Sounds fun, right?
Oh, yeah!
Quiet Contempt 