When I was a kid I learned early on in school about the difference between facts and opinions. Facts are things that are unquestionably true: George Washington was the first U.S. president, Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system, Tom Brady has the record for most single-season passing touchdowns. Opinions are people's subjective views on something: checkered curtains are ugly, George W. Bush was a bad president, calculus is a form of cruel and unusual punishment. It was always easy to tell the difference between the two, facts were facts and opinions were opinions.
I feel like today, however, as I pay more and more attention to big issues in arenas such as politics and science, facts are disputed to an incredible degree. The veracity of things that seem like they should be clearly true or false (or at least easy to find out whether they are true or false) are seemingly argued about more than ever. Take, for example, global warming. The best climatologists in the world, after careful a study of the planet that included the accumulation and analysis of all the necessary data and evidence, agree that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal," that there is no doubt the Earth is gradually warming up. It's been found to be as much a fact as Jupiter's position as the biggest planet in the solar system is. Despite such a sound conclusion, however, only 67% of Americans in an October 2012 poll believe there is solid evidence of global warming. Obviously there is a lot of misinformation being pushed by hard-core denialists and those who don't stand to benefit from widespread acceptance of these facts, but how do a whole one-third of Americans dispute the best climatologists in the world's conclusive findings? Why can't facts just be facts?
Another great example were the 2012 presidential debates. Mitt Romney would make one claim and President Obama would immediately label it false; Obama would make another claim and Romney would immediately label it false. These claims they made involved previous statements they made publicly and how the math in their respective economic plans adds up — claims one would think are so easily proved true or false that the candidate actually lying about a disputed point wouldn't dare try to deceive the public so blatantly. (All the disputed claims from the campaign, conventions, and debates kept reputable sites like FactCheck.org quite busy.)
One particularly frustrating instance of people claiming something's factual only to have their opponent immediately claim it false was the California General Election Official Voting Information Guide. Just about all of the propositions required further reading into their pro and con arguments for me to make an informed decision and pretty much every single one had their two sides claiming the other's facts are false.
Argument Against Repealing the Death Penalty: "Department of Corrections data suggests abolishing capital punishment will result in increased long-term costs in the tens of millions, just for housing/healthcare."
Argument In Favor of Repealing the Death Penalty: "An impartial study found California will save nearly $1 billion in five years if we replace the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole."
Thanks guys, that totally helped.1 When you have both sides claiming the other's facts are incorrect, it becomes near-impossible to make any kind of confident decision. Unless the writers of these arguments focus on the most minute of subtleties,2 one side is either in denial of a verifiable reality or one side is knowingly lying.
It appears that if facts, even easily verifiable facts, do not suit a party's purpose, then the party will willingly lie to further their agenda. This is possibly best evidenced by Paul Ryan's R.N.C. speech back in August; his address was so riddled with falsehoods and disputations of veritable facts that it was even lambasted at Fox News. And people will buy objections to verified facts too, as evidenced by the global warming poll. It's not just frustrating to watch, but sad as well.
Whether or not the disagreement over verified and legit facts is intentional, people will continue to lose out because of it. People will make misinformed political decisions, often important ones; people will refuse to believe in concrete science, undermining their own intellect; people will be unnecessarily confused about what really did happen and what is really happening right now. It really demonstrates the importance of making the effort to verify people's claims and to not blindly follow anyone.
1 My vote to repeal it was based on a moral decision rather than a fiscal one, but you get the idea.
2 Kinda like when one channel claims their show was "voted the best new prime-time network sitcom" versus another another claiming their shows was "voted the best new network sitcom of the summer."
I feel like today, however, as I pay more and more attention to big issues in arenas such as politics and science, facts are disputed to an incredible degree. The veracity of things that seem like they should be clearly true or false (or at least easy to find out whether they are true or false) are seemingly argued about more than ever. Take, for example, global warming. The best climatologists in the world, after careful a study of the planet that included the accumulation and analysis of all the necessary data and evidence, agree that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal," that there is no doubt the Earth is gradually warming up. It's been found to be as much a fact as Jupiter's position as the biggest planet in the solar system is. Despite such a sound conclusion, however, only 67% of Americans in an October 2012 poll believe there is solid evidence of global warming. Obviously there is a lot of misinformation being pushed by hard-core denialists and those who don't stand to benefit from widespread acceptance of these facts, but how do a whole one-third of Americans dispute the best climatologists in the world's conclusive findings? Why can't facts just be facts?
Another great example were the 2012 presidential debates. Mitt Romney would make one claim and President Obama would immediately label it false; Obama would make another claim and Romney would immediately label it false. These claims they made involved previous statements they made publicly and how the math in their respective economic plans adds up — claims one would think are so easily proved true or false that the candidate actually lying about a disputed point wouldn't dare try to deceive the public so blatantly. (All the disputed claims from the campaign, conventions, and debates kept reputable sites like FactCheck.org quite busy.)
One particularly frustrating instance of people claiming something's factual only to have their opponent immediately claim it false was the California General Election Official Voting Information Guide. Just about all of the propositions required further reading into their pro and con arguments for me to make an informed decision and pretty much every single one had their two sides claiming the other's facts are false.
Argument Against Repealing the Death Penalty: "Department of Corrections data suggests abolishing capital punishment will result in increased long-term costs in the tens of millions, just for housing/healthcare."
Argument In Favor of Repealing the Death Penalty: "An impartial study found California will save nearly $1 billion in five years if we replace the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole."
Thanks guys, that totally helped.1 When you have both sides claiming the other's facts are incorrect, it becomes near-impossible to make any kind of confident decision. Unless the writers of these arguments focus on the most minute of subtleties,2 one side is either in denial of a verifiable reality or one side is knowingly lying.
It appears that if facts, even easily verifiable facts, do not suit a party's purpose, then the party will willingly lie to further their agenda. This is possibly best evidenced by Paul Ryan's R.N.C. speech back in August; his address was so riddled with falsehoods and disputations of veritable facts that it was even lambasted at Fox News. And people will buy objections to verified facts too, as evidenced by the global warming poll. It's not just frustrating to watch, but sad as well.
Whether or not the disagreement over verified and legit facts is intentional, people will continue to lose out because of it. People will make misinformed political decisions, often important ones; people will refuse to believe in concrete science, undermining their own intellect; people will be unnecessarily confused about what really did happen and what is really happening right now. It really demonstrates the importance of making the effort to verify people's claims and to not blindly follow anyone.
1 My vote to repeal it was based on a moral decision rather than a fiscal one, but you get the idea.
2 Kinda like when one channel claims their show was "voted the best new prime-time network sitcom" versus another another claiming their shows was "voted the best new network sitcom of the summer."
No comments:
Post a Comment