A question about the epistemology of narratives and assessing what's true or false.

I'm not sure what you mean by "narrative," so my answer may be off by a mile . . .

To me, the term "narrative" describes a particular belief or explanation embraced by certain people. When we talk about the 9/11 terrorist attacks, we are normally presented with two narratives - the "mainstream narrative" promoted by the U.S. government and the media, and the opposing narrative embraced by people who 1) don't trust the government and media, and/or 2) saw too many red flags in the official (mainstream) narrative.

It's up to each of us to read competing narratives carefully and use rational thinking skills to try and decide which narrative, if any, is correct.

You wrote, "Narratives have nothing to do with what's true or false."

Doesn't that depend on the narrative? I'll take a narrative supported by facts and logic over a narrative that's full of holes any day. I also pay attention to the author(s) of a particular narrative.

You wrote, "What place do narratives have in finding truth, or are they just propaganda?"

Some narratives are propaganda, others aren't.

As for finding truth, a narrative is often all we have to go on. The average person wasn't able to jump on a plane bound for New York City and inspect the wreckage of the World Trade Center. All they had to go on was the words of witnesses, fake witnesses, politicians, and media rats, most of it broadcast via the media. (I was privileged to meet one person from NYC who had some personal stories to relate.)

Due the extraordinary deluge of propaganda that characterizes our society, I would argue that virtually all narratives are suspect. I've learned to do my own research and fact-checking, always striving for rational analysis. Right now, I'm working on a book about the growing war between the U.S. and China, with an emphasis on the computer chip war. I would not characterize YouTube as a source I trust, yet most of the important breaking news comes from videos posted on Google. There are so many things the mainstream media aren't discussing. When I discover new ideas and events on YouTube videos, I'm not always able to verify them. However, I find that they are often verified through other sources a few weeks or months down the road.

I just want to comment on the idea of narratives and one aspect of how it applies to critical thinking.

People overwhelmingly are attracted to the narrative they find most "plausible," not the most "probable" even if they claim the former. The problem with this is "plausibility" is very different from "probability." Within plausibility are biases, a foundation of misinformation (a belief system built on false information built over a lifetime), and psychological pathologies such as paranoia. In short, "plausibility" is largely psychological where "probability" is fact-driven and mostly free from interpretation.

So the question to ask when accepting a narrative is: Is this actually the most probable explanation?

Calculating probability is often complicated and cognitively expensive, which is why the vast majority of people choose plausibility.

This is just part of the human experience, particularly in the digital age. We are inundated with claims, and it's basically impossible to operate if you have to rigorously evaluate every claim you come across.

Initial impression is an efficient way of sorting information. Does it "sound correct" and do we trust the source? That works for a lot of mundane things, but also leaves is vulnerable to being tricked, particularly when you have online echo chambers that can shape a person's world view.

That said, narratives aren't fundamentally a bad thing. Humans aren't completely rational, we're also emotional. Adding a narrative to your data is a good way to get people to care what you're saying. For instance, climate scientists will often use images of desperate polar bears on shrinking ice to drive home why their message is important.

Hi, Jason!

Certain other repliers weren’t clear on what a narrative is. Let me see if I’m understanding this, then make a first pass at answering. 

Suppose a teenage mother has lived with her son below the poverty line since his birth, working two jobs and residing in a $500 one bedroom apartment. 

A business tycoon in town might call her a failure. He says so because he values himself and his time above all, and aims to profit and scale up all his work, but she differs and falls short of this. Her very conservative, religious father might call her a failure. He says so because he values his marriage above all and aims to raise a family within its confines, but she has had a child out of wedlock and continues to seek no man. Her boss might call her successful because he values independence and reliability, and aims to be self-sufficient and trustworthy, all of which the mother embodies in the workplace and in the raising of her son. 

Is this basically how you understand narrative? It is how we represent situations, such as the mother’s, based on our values and aims. In some narratives the woman is successful, in others is failed. 

Well, the thing about narratives is that they might arise from a background of principles accepted with stage 2 thinking. A person might use logic, reason and facts to develop their values and aims, then narrate on this basis. Narratives seem to be true or false relative to a background of what a person regards as significant in life. So, narratives are true or false in this manner—that is, relativistically. The mother is narrated correctly as successful, relative to the boss’s principles. But it is false to say that she is successful, relative to the tycoon’s or father’s principles. 

Consider also that the background ideas of what is significant in life—an ethics, natural law theory, religious view of human nature, perhaps—of which narratives conform to, could be objectively true or false. Perhaps, there are objective facts and good arguments about life principles. So, narratives could be true or false in this secondary way—that is, objectively true or false depending on whether the background from which they arise is objectively correct. 

Narratives have both a relativistic truth-hood and an indirect connection to objective truth-hood, is my thought. They are T/F relative to life principles, and indirectly objectively T/F depending on whether those principles are correct. This is just some brainstorming on a question whose topic is outside my comfort zone but still interesting. 

Thank you, Jason 

From, Kaiden

P.S. I selected “AI Generated” because I’d never seen it before and it was funny.

Generally, I agree we must focus on facts. Having said that, when I hear a "narrative" it is automatically suspect. When that term is used I think of a talking point or points designed to mislead.  That is not to say I won't examine all the facts at my disposal in an effort to find the truth.