The politics of deepities
In his 2013 book “Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking,” philosopher Daniel Dennett coined the term “deepity” to describe a seemingly profound statement that, upon closer inspection, reveals itself to be either trivially true — and therefore far less profound than the speaker intended — or patently incorrect. As Dennett put it:
A deepity is a proposition that seems both important and true — and profound — but that achieves this effect by being ambiguous. On one reading it is manifestly false, but it would be earth-shaking if it were true; on the other reading it is true but trivial. The unwary listener picks up the glimmer of truth from the second reading, and the devastating importance from the first reading, and thinks, Wow!
These days, deepities seem to pop up all the time in our political discourse in ways that I think severely undermine the quality of public discussions around important and controversial issues. When politicians and pundits employ deepities, they avoid engaging in substantive ways. The ambiguity allows them to appeal to a wide audience without committing to specific positions or truly engaging with the nuances of the other side's arguments.
Here’s an example. Imagine you’re debating the impact of rising sea levels on small island nations against someone who is skeptical that anthropogenic climate change is a serious concern. You point this person to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent assessment report and show them the projected impacts on ecosystems, food and water security, immigration and displacement, and general health factors. Your interlocutor replies, “The future is uncertain.”
This is a deepity. In one sense, it is trivially true that the future is uncertain. But in this context, the assertion seems to be equivocating between two senses of uncertainty — the (true) sense that we never have perfect knowledge about the future, and the (false) sense that we cannot make strong, evidence-based predictions about the future impacts of climate change.
The prevalence of deepities perpetuates a superficial understanding of complex issues, allowing emotional appeals and sensationalism to dominate over reasoned analysis. Below are a few additional examples of deepities that I hear all the time in political debates. Whatever your ideological affiliation, I would like to gently propose that repeating any of these slogans may not be the most worthwhile contribution to our public conversation.
Life begins at conception (fertilization)
In a trivial sense, it’s true that life begins with the fusing of two gametes into a single-celled zygote. However, on another level, the statement implies a moral or philosophical claim — that this biological beginning constitutes the point at which personhood or moral significance should be attributed to a developing organism.
By equivocating between these two levels of meaning, opponents of abortion often try to cultivate the perception that all of the complicated moral and ethical questions are easily resolved. In reality, the assertion superficially combines a biological fact with a moral claim, creating the appearance of profound insight while avoiding the complexities and controversies associated with the broader issue of when and how personhood is actually defined.
Evolution is just a theory
When someone says “evolution is just a theory,” they’re actually making two claims — that evolution is a theory and that it is somehow less valid or significant because of that. When you examine it more closely, you realize that this claim conflates two distinct meanings of the word “theory.”
In scientific terms, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation supported by an established body of evidence and confirmed through rigorous experimentation. Evolution, in this sense, is a scientific theory that explains the diversity and change in living organisms across time. It is one of the most well-supported and widely accepted theories in biology.
On the other hand, the colloquial use of the word “theory” often implies a mere guess or speculation without much evidence. By using “theory” in this context, opponents of evolution insinuate that evolution is somehow uncertain or lacking credibility — which isn’t correct.
Free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences
This is one I hear constantly. And, in one sense, it’s trivially true that freedom of speech, as a concept, does not entail absolute freedom from any of the effects of that speech. But this assertion equivocates between several meanings of the term “consequences.” In fact, freedom of speech does mean the ability to articulate your opinions and ideas “without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction” and thus necessarily entails freedom from certain legal and even social consequences.
Debates over free expression are often about precisely these kinds of consequences, rather than broad immunity from all possible consequences. The concept of freedom of speech has always been understood to have limits and reasonable restrictions. Thus, this common refrain is trivially true but doesn’t provide any new or meaningful insight. And the very vagueness of the term “consequences” allows for all manner of social and legal sanctions to be defended as compatible with free speech, even if those consequences would undermine the entire concept.
Love is love
Even well-intentioned deepities should be avoided, and “love is love” easily falls into this category. On the surface, “love is love” is tautologically true. It’s a logical identity, like A is A. In a slightly less literal reading, the assertion is simply attempting to point out that love can manifest in different ways and thus to advocate for broader acceptance of diverse relationships, especially among gender and sexual minorities.
But when you dissect the phrase, you realize that it doesn’t provide any meaningful or substantive insight. Virtually no one believes that all forms of love are equivalent and should be equally accepted by society, regardless of the individuals involved. Like some of the other deepities noted above, this one may have rhetorical power and emotional resonance, but it lacks the depth and intellectual substance associated with a genuinely profound statement.
