Being Wrong - Kathryn Schulz [68]
Like the earlier Bacon, then, the later one saw most errors as stemming from collective social forces rather than individual cognitive ones. This is a recurring theme in the history of wrongness. Or, more precisely, it is a recurring question in the history of wrongness: whether we are more error-prone when we follow the masses or strike out on our own. I think of this as the Fifty Million Frenchmen question, after the expression “fifty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong.” The saying comes from a 1927 hit song that poked fun at American prudery:
All of our fashions come from gay Par-ee
And if they come above the knee
Fifty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong….
If they prefer to see their women dressed
With more or less of less and less,
Fifty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong….
And when we brag about our liberty
And they laugh at you and me
Fifty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong.
In short, if everybody’s doing it, it must be a good idea. This is a notion that has received considerable support well outside the domain of pop songs. The Cornell psychologist and behavioral economist Thomas Gilovich has observed that, “Other things being equal, the greater the number of people who believe something, the more likely it is to be true.” And the legal scholar Cass Sunstein has pointed out that, “Conformity of this kind is not stupid or senseless,” since “the decisions of other people convey information about what really should be done.” The financial writer James Surowiecki calls this notion “social proof”—the idea that “if lots of people are doing something or believe something, there must be a good reason why.”*
The other side of the Fifty Million Frenchmen coin is the one your mother loves: if all your friends were jumping off the roof, would you jump, too? This injunction not to be a lemming—to think for oneself instead of following the masses—was the point Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon were trying to make as well. (Two esteemed Englishmen and your mother can’t be wrong.) Some philosophers, including John Locke and David Hume, have formalized this idea, arguing that secondhand information, no matter how compelling or pervasive, never constitutes sufficient grounds for knowledge. According to these thinkers, we can only claim to know something if we ourselves have directly observed or experienced it.
Thinking for oneself is, beyond a doubt, a laudable goal. But there are three problems with the idea that it is a good way to ward off error. The first is that the glorification of independent thought can easily become a refuge for holders of utterly oddball beliefs. You can dismiss any quantity of informed and intelligent adversaries if you choose to regard them as victims of a collective, crowd-driven madness, while casting yourself as the lone voice of truth. The second problem is that (as we have seen), our own direct observations and experiences are not necessarily more trustworthy than secondhand knowledge. If Captain Robert Bartlett, the man who spotted the glaciers