Debunking Pseudoscience: A Study of Credibility

Pseudoscience is a set of claims that seems scientific, but isn’t. In particular, pseudoscience lacks the safeguards against confirmation bias and belief perseverance that characterize science. Any 100 level psychology student should be able to tell you that, but so many times we forget its application (Lilienfeld). We hear Billy Mays rave about the wonders of Oxy-clean, or see that Shakira lost 60 lbs in one week from the miracle drug and all sense is lost. Perhaps the same can be said for hearing a tall tale in a book, spun by the main character. Merriam Webster’s definition of credibility is as follows: the quality of being believed or accepted as true, real, or honest. Throughout this paper I would like you to keep that definition in

mind. Ask yourself; is Mattie Ross, heroine from the novel True Grit, a credible and reliable narrator? True Grit, a classic western novel written by Charles Portis takes place in Arkansas and what was then the Choctaw Nation circa 1878. In this novel the narrator introduces us to her fourteen-year-old self following her father’s wrongful slaughter. After receiving news that nothing would be done about this travesty Mattie sets off with two hardened law-men to take justice into her own hands. As a fourteen-year-old girl, Mattie conquers some incredible feats such as bargaining [and besting] with business men, surviving weeks in a hostile wild tundra, and tangoing with bandits. Through all of this she stays emotionless and level. Amazing for a child, right? Through all of these extraordinary claims I begin to challenge Mattie’s credibility, thus making her an unreliable narrator. In order to make this case we must first define an unreliable narrator as such: a person who either from ignorance or self-interest speaks with bias, makes mistakes, or even lies ultimately making it so they cannot be trusted. It is Mattie’s skewed or biased judgment, disinterest in the thoughts others, and the time-lapse between her narrative and the actual event that can explain why Mattie is an unreliable narrator.
We already know that Mattie’s judgment is skewed, but hers is the only point of view the reader sees. Her bias is best exemplified in her own definition of true grit – “William Waters in the best tracker… the meanest one is Rooster Cogburn. He is a pitiless man, double-tough, and fear don't enter into his thinking. He loves to pull cork. Quin… is as straight as a string” (Portis 25). At this point in the novel Mattie is searching for somebody to aid her in her conquest for blood, she is given the choice between a great tracker, a straight laced fair man, or a ruthless trigger happy S.O.B, and she chooses the latter. This speaks volumes for her character and shows immediately that she is only interested in what is good for her intent and purpose. Now following this definition of true grit, and Rooster Cogburn being her ideal guy we see a sudden change in Mattie’s definition, “I would have Lawyer Daggett skin Rooster Cogburn and nail his verminous hide to the wall” (Portis 100). At this point in the novel things aren’t going Mattie’s way, and the pitilessness that soguht out turned Cogburn from a man with grit to a “sorry piece of trash” (Portis 100) now that she wasn’t getting what she wanted. The extreme flip in her attitude says miles in the way of being unreliable; she changes her definitions of what she’s looking for because she can only see one route to things. Her self-interest has her so single minded and set that she can’t even see the error of her own ways. When pointed out by others she completely negates their point of view, which leads me to our next point.
Right from the beginning we see that Mattie has a low opinion of the public’s ability to see the truth, and this theme seems to continue throughout the novel. “People do not give it credence that a fourteen-year-old girl could leave home… and avenge her father’s blood” (Portis 11). This quote lets the reader know from page one that the narrator already knows that in the eyes of other people her story is exaggerated, but regardless of that she wants you [the reader] to believe it true. Mattie works hard throughout this novel to remind the reader that she speaks the truth and nobody else knows what they’re talking about. With this we get a very limited view. Mattie is dedicated to her convictions, and instead of considering other truths she is stuck on her own explanation for things. Not only does that show that that she discounts every other viewpoint, “I know what people said…people love to talk. They love to slander you…but let me tell you a secret… I care nothing for what they say!” (Portis 223- 224) but it also shows her extreme sense of bias. Mattie is solely driven off of self interest. No matter if there are outsiders reading her ‘true accounts’ for the first time or the people in her own locale, she cares not of other viewpoints, but is so quick to defend her own. If every event happened as she said, why does Mattie Ross have so many critics?
Did I mention that this narration takes place 40+ years after the event occurred?

Mattie Ross is hyper-specific on the details of this story. She can recall the clothes everyone was wearing, the exact locations, and names of every person, place, or thing she met on the way. Doesn’t this strike you as odd? If you are anything like me you probably can’t even remember what you had for breakfast this morning. In fact it is basic science that anecdotal evidence, such as the story followed in True Grit, is basing claims on the dramatic reports of one or two individuals. As impressive as the claims may be you can’t put much stock into them. Firsthand “evidence” may actually be based on subjective impression. In general anecdotes are often difficult to verify and do nothing to tell how representative the cases are (Lilienfeld). I believe upon learning this there are some important questions to ask. Why did it take so long for Mattie to re-tell this story? We learn that she didn’t even try to find Rooster for twenty-five years, “I wonder if the Marshall would remember me: A quarter of a century is a long time!” (Portis 221) Why is that? In addition to this we also find that she is never brought back into contact with LaBoeuf. Pretty much everyone else involved died during the action. Isn’t it convenient that Mattie is finally telling her “True account of how she avenged Frank Ross’s blood” (Portis 224) when there is nobody left to dispute the

facts?
In all sciences there are sets of checks and balances to protect the general public from the harm brought on by pseudoscientific thinking. In this day and age there are so many different sources of media where people are able to get their information and it makes them fall prey to different logical fallacies. In our case with Mattie, we must ask am I falling prey to anecdotal evidence? I advise you before believing everything this narrator says, to ask yourself these important questions. Does her bias dent her credibility? Does she even notice how single sided her viewpoint is? How accountable is the woman, who has suffered so much ‘trauma’ 40 years later? After accurately answering these questions you may come to the same conclusion as I, being the narrator and the hero begins to lead us down the winding road of deception whether it is through cognitive bias, utter disregard of other opinion, or simply the factors of time. Don’t let yourself be fooled, as Mattie Ross would say, “Time just gets away from us.”