Credo - I believe. Scio - I know

Subjective faith and empirical knowledge

The title for this piece contains two Latin words. Credo means I believe as in Credo in Unum Deum Patrem Omnipotentam – the opening words of the Christian Creed and particularly the Nicene Creed. The word creed derives from the Latin for “I believe”.

Scio means I know and forms the root of the word science which is a process for achieving knowledge.

On 20^th August 2024 the following exchange took place during Question time in Parliament.

The questions were directed to the Prime Minister. The emphasis in italics is mine.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his statement, "Part of the history of modern New Zealand has been our struggle to understand the intentions and expectations of those who signed the Treaty. … That work is still happening and will keep going.", and, if so, can he set out his understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi by telling the House whether he believes that Māori ceded sovereignty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer the first part of the question: yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister believe that Māori ceded sovereignty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our position is the Crown is sovereign.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it a fact that 102 years ago, in a major thesis, Sir Āpirana Ngata set out the very circumstances of the Treaty and he said that Māori ceded sovereignty—far closer to the action he was, as were other Māori leaders of that time?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said, our position is that the Crown is sovereign and also, importantly, the Treaty of Waitangi has protections in there for both Crown and Māori interests.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are we to take from that answer that the Prime Minister believes that Māori ceded sovereignty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don't know how I can be clearer in answer to the first question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When did Māori cede sovereignty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I just say to the member: we have a Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of New Zealand. In there is protection for both Crown and Māori interests. But as I said to you, the position is very clear: Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does his Government's Treaty principles bill consider the Waitangi Tribunal's finding from 10 years ago that, "The rangatira who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi in February 1840 did not cede [their] sovereignty to Britain," or does he continue or intend to continue to sideline the Waitangi Tribunal?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We haven't seen a Treaty principles bill yet.

Some  issues arise from this line of questioning.

In a Court Ms. Swarbrick would not have been allowed to ask such questions. Indeed although I understand she may have had some contact with a legal education while at University, she has not mastered the skills of cross-examination.

The information she was seeking to elicit was whether or not the Prime Minister accepted as a fact that Maori had ceded sovereignty by the Treaty of Waitangi.

If the answer to that question was “yes” (and it would seem from Mr Luxon’s responses that he is incapable of using that word, but then, when confronted with the choice between a simple single-word answer and a complex and evasive response, politicians will invariably choose the latter), the follow-up from Swarbrick’s part would then be to confront Mr Luxon with the finding of the Waitangi Tribunal in the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry of October 2014 where the Tribunal held that “the rangatira who signed te Tiriti o Waitangi in February 1840 did not cede their sovereignty to Britain …..[T]hat is, they did not cede authority to make and enforce law over their people or their territories.”

The problem then facing Mr. Luxon would be whether he would state agreement or disagreement with the Waitangi Tribunal finding. As it is his response “Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown” makes the position clear.

Ms. Swarbrick in a somewhat half-hearted question then asked whether he considered the Waitangi Tribunal position or intended to sideline the Tribunal. Mr Luxon adroitly ducked the question by observing that a Treaty Principles Bill had not been seen as yet.

The first issue is the position of the cession of sovereignty. Mr. Luxon’s position is that Maori ceded sovereignty to the Crown. That statement is correct on a reading of the language of the Treaty.

How does this square with the Waitangi Tribunal Finding of October 2014. The bald statement that they did not cede sovereignty to Britain is not qualified in that wording but is qualified subsequently in that the Rangatira did not cede authority to make and enforce law over their own people and territories. This was recognized in the concept of differing spheres of influence which reflected the realpolitik of 1840. It was suggested that how this relationship would work in practice, especially where the Māori and European populations intermingled, remained to be negotiated over time on a case-by-case basis.

So the bald assertion that the Rangatira did not cede sovereignty lacks nuance, avoids the historical realities of the time and further ignores the realities of subsequent history which involved negotiations in some cases and the exercise of raw power in others.

A second point arising from the exchange is the way that Ms Swarbrick framed her questions, asking whether the Prime Minister believed in a certain situation.

I recall hearing with some amusement a speaker at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park proclaiming “I believe in evidence”. That statement in itself contains internal contradictions and inconsistencies as the following discussion will illustrate.

But following that, to ask someone whether or not the believe something to be so raises some interesting issues.

Let me give an example.

A little while ago I was asked whether or not I believed in climate change.

My answer was no.

As my questioner drew breath for the inevitable impassioned rejoinder to my answer, I added “However I know for a fact that there is climate change” and indeed it is a fact that climate change has been a reality of our planet since its inception. Were it not for climate change we would not enjoy the climate that we currently enjoy and which is constantly changing.

At one stage the British Isles were a part of the European landmass. During the Holocene sea levels rose and cut off the land bridge, isolating the British Isles in roughly the position that they are in now. Rising and falling sea levels are not a new phenomenon.

But the questions asked by Ms Swarbrick and my climate change advocate demonstrate how careful we must be to distinguish matters of “belief” or “faith” and matters of known or empirically proven fact.

What follows is a very broad brush discussion of the difference between the two. Philosophers have written reams on this topic and no doubt philosophers among my readers will drive an intellectual truck through the brief summaries that follow but here goes.

Belief - Credo

Belief is the acceptance of a proposition or statement as true, without requiring evidence or verification.

Belief can be based on a number of factors including personal experience, intuition, faith, tradition, authority, or other sources of information. However, in the majority of cases belief involves an element of faith. Indeed beliefs can exist without any evidence at all. A person might believe in something based entirely on faith, intuition, or personal conviction.

Belief can be influenced by cognitive biases, emotions, social norms, and cultural values.

Belief can be rational or irrational, depending on the validity and consistency of the reasoning behind it. However, reasoning will invariably require some form of empirical or evidential foundation which may transform the element of faith into a matter of proven fact.

Belief involves subjective confidence – it is a subjective state where a person thinks something is true, even if there is no definitive proof or overwhelming evidence – that is where the faith element comes to the fore.

Finally in this “once over lightly summary”  beliefs can range from strong convictions to tentative assumptions. They don't always imply certainty.

Knowledge - Scio

Knowledge on the other hand is based on objective proof.

In very broad summary – and I do not speak about proof in this context as a legal concept – the following assertions can be made:

Proof is the demonstration of the truth or validity of a proposition or statement, by providing sufficient evidence or logical arguments.

Proof can be based on empirical observation, experimentation, mathematics, logic, or other methods of inquiry.

Proof can be challenged by questioning the reliability, validity, or relevance of the evidence or arguments.

Proof can be conclusive or inconclusive, depending on the degree of certainty or doubt that it generates.

Flowing from proof is knowledge and the following propositions flow from that.

Knowledge is based on objective justification whereas belief is entirely subjective.  Knowledge is sometimes defined as "justified true belief." It implies that the belief is not only true but also supported by strong evidence or reasoning. It is a definition that I do not like because it still contains a subjective element.

Knowing something to be so requires a high standard proof. Knowing something typically requires that the belief  (lets call it an hypothesis) is backed by facts, logical reasoning, or empirical evidence. There is a stronger foundation for accepting it as true.

Knowledge also implies a higher degree of certainty. When you know something, it is usually because you have evidence or reason to be highly confident in its truth.

In essence, belief can exist without certainty or evidence, while knowledge typically requires both – the hypothesis plus the proof.

Thus, if Ms Swarbrick was seeking certainty from Mr Luxon, she was asking the wrong question.