A Philosopher's Blog

Are Facts Dead?

Posted in Philosophy, Politics, Reasoning/Logic by Michael LaBossiere on June 22, 2012
Ideology Icon

Ideology Icon (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Misrepresenting facts and actually lying have long been a part of politics. However, it has been claimed that this is the year facts died. The death blow, at least according to some, was April 18, 2012. On this day Representative Allen West of my state of Florida claimed that about 80 congressional democrats are members of the Communist Party. A little fact checking revealed that this is not the case. Interestingly enough, West decided to stand by his remarks rather than yield to the truth. While this might seem odd, West’s approach was probably the best policy politically.

In some cases, the abuse of facts is more subtle. For example, Obama has been attacked on the grounds that the average economic worth of the middle class in the United States plummeted on his watch. While this is truth-like, it does leave out some key information, namely that the plummet was well underway when Obama took office. To use an analogy, it would be like blaming a new pilot who took the stick halfway through a nose dive for that nose dive. Sure, he is at the stick and the plane was in a nose dive—but he did not put it there. As might be imagined, this approach of making truth-like claims is not limited to the right. For example, Romney is being bashed for the Massachusetts’ seemingly bad job creation numbers while he was governor. However, Romney’s situation was very much like Obama’s: he took the stick after someone else put the plane in a dive. Given that the situations are comparable, both men should be able to avail themselves of the same defense. Also, it is tempting to think that getting the relevant facts would defuse these attacks. That is, one might want to think that people would regard both attacks as flawed and essentially unfounded and this would be the ends of these attacks. But, one does not always get what one wants.

While this might come as something of a shock, people are often not very rational—especially when it comes to politics. While both of these attacks have been addressed in detail subject to rational examination, this did not spell their end. In fact, it has been found that when people get information that corrects a false claim, they will be even more likely to believe the false claim (provided that they claim matches their views).  For example, if Republicans and Democrats read an article that claims that one of Obama’s policies had a significant positive effect and then learn that the initial article was in error, the Democrats would  be more inclined to believe the original article despite the fact that it had been shown to be in error. The Republicans would be more inclined to reject the original article. In short, it seems that corrective information is generally only accepted when it corrects in a way favorable to a person’s ideology.  This has the rather unfortunate effect that correcting an error in an ideological context will only correct the error in the minds of those who already want to believe it is an error and will generally not change the mind of those who want to believe.

In addition to the obvious problem, this tendency also means that people who are wrong (intentionally or unintentionally) generally will not suffer any damage to their credibility among their own faction, provided that their errors match the ideology of said faction. As such, the consequences of saying things that are not true seem to be generally positive—at least from a pragmatic standpoint. After all, if the claim matches the proper ideology and is not called out, then it will be accepted. If it is called out and shown to be in error, the criticism will generally serve to incline those who agree with the claim to still believe it. As such, presenting an ideologically “correct” falsehood (which need not be a lie) seems to be generally a win-win situation.

Since I teach critical thinking, this rather worries me. After all, I devote considerable energy to trying to teach people that they should base their beliefs on evidence and rational argumentation rather than on whatever matches their ideology.  One stock response to my concern is that people are this way “by nature” and hence there is little point in trying to teach people to be critical thinkers. Trying to overcome this tendency and solve the problem of ideological irrationality would be as futile as trying to solve the problem of teen pregnancy by trying to teach abstinence (after all, people are fornicators by nature).

On my bad days, I tend to almost agree. After all, I have repeatedly seen people who are capable of being rational in non-ideological areas show that they lose this capacity when it comes to ideology. However, this is not true of everyone. After all, there are clearly and obviously people who can do a reasonably good job of objective analysis. While some of this might be disposition, much of it is clearly due to training. While everyone might not be trainable, most people could be trained to be critical thinkers. To use an analogy, just as natural tendencies can be overcome by other forms of training (such as military training), this allegedly natural tendency to just go with one’s ideology can also be overcome. I know this because I have seen it happen.

Of course, there is also an artificial barrier. Folks in politics and other areas benefit greatly from being able to (consciously or not) manipulate the poor thinking skills and emotional vulnerabilities of people. As such, they have a vested interest in learning techniques to do this and to ensure that people are left as defenseless as possible. As such, while critical thinking skills are in demand, the education system is actually largely designed to not create such skills. One rather glaring example is that the most basic critical thinking classes are generally taught in college and not earlier. While some educators wonder why students do so badly at critical thinking, this is obviously part of the answer. Imagine what the math skills of students would be like if they took their first actual math class as a college freshman. While it might be countered that critical thinking is too hard for kids, this is clearly not true—the basics could be taught as soon as kids were being taught the basics of math and probably even earlier. In short, I would say that much of what is attributed to human nature is actually the result of education—or the lack thereof.

My Amazon author page.

Enhanced by Zemanta

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. T. J. Babson said, on June 22, 2012 at 7:05 am

    In Obama’s own words. But apparently those of us who take him at his word are ignoring facts.

    Speaking to NBC’s Matt Lauer, Obama then suggested that the economy would not be fixed overnight, but if he hadn’t been able to fix it within three years, he should be “held accountable” and look at a “one-term proposition.”


    • Michael LaBossiere said, on June 22, 2012 at 9:36 am

      This would be in accord with our consistent national policy of holding politicians to any promises or promise like claims that they make.

      Obama should, of course, be held accountable for what he is actually responsible for. And he was right-a failed economy could cost him re-election. One counter is, of course, that he did fix the economy. That is, the economy was in a hard crash and he managed to keep it from hitting the ground. This is, of course, a problem of counterfactuals: if he had not done what he did, would the economy have been significantly worse? Would McCain/Palin have done a better or worse job? Unfortunately, we don’t have a consensus among the unbiased experts and counterfactuals are generally difficult to sort out.

  2. Edward Carney said, on June 22, 2012 at 10:13 am

    What a chilling title. I have noticed this trend, and few things do more to shake my faith in our society. But it’s wonderful to see someone else recognize that “the education system is actually largely designed to not create such skills.” I would also argue that that problem is not limited to primary and secondary education, and that college frequently fails to actually provide young people with critical thinking skills, as well. A study completed last year by Professor Richard Arum, of my alma mater, demonstrated that as a whole students across the country showed very little improvement in writing and critical thinking skills from one year to the next. I think this could be the result of either poor standards or a tendency to push people who have no interest in developing critical thinking schools through higher education. Likely, it is a combination of both.

    But as your post alludes to, it is an endemic problem. I too have encountered people whose reasoning capabilities I truly respect except for when I witness them arguing about something that they’re ideologically committed to. I too bristle at the defeatism that says, “This is the way people are; no use trying to change it.” I see that line used to excuse all sorts of negative human behaviors, as if neither men nor mankind are capable of improving. I too recall instances of politicians and media personalities lying outright, or at least speaking with an obvious disinterest in what is factually true. I believe that in light of all this, it will require a top down cultural shift to reverse the trend of decaying critical thinking skills.

    I’ve long felt that if you go on the floor of Congress and plainly lie or make up statistics to your constituents or on their behalf, there should be an immediate referendum on your job. Similarly, executives in news agencies ought to respect the truth enough to institute a policy whereby if one lies or misrepresents facts while tasked with presenting the news to the public, that person faces sever consequences, up to being fired. Until those sorts of policies are instituted at the levels of government and media, it will be enormously difficult to instill genuine respect for the facts among the public.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on June 22, 2012 at 10:25 am

      Professor Arum does seem to have it right. I’ve served on a committee since 2004 that focuses on our general education classes and one of our tasks is to assess how the university is doing in core areas, one of which is critical thinking. Because of this, I’ve had to review data from the university and across the country about critical thinking. Sadly, but not surprisingly, there is an across the board weakness in critical thinking skills. Somewhat surprisingly, college does not seem to do much to improve these skills-at least in ways discernible by the tests in use.

      While this might be explained by saying that this is “human nature”, I do agree that this is a mere excuse rather than an adequate explanation. After all, people can learn to think critically and they can learn to rein in the biasing influence of their ideologies and emotions. True, this is a hard thing to do and people do vary in their natural gifts. However, this is no excuse for our general failure in this area.

  3. magus71 said, on June 22, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    I believe much of it is a result of the “Plague of Ideas”, as written about by Ralph Peters in a US Army War College essay. There is simply too much information and not all minds can adequately sort the real from teh absurd:


    Pick any moderately controversial topic on Youtube and read the comments. We are getting dumber because of too much information. Perhaps something along the lines of Tofler’s Future Shock.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on June 22, 2012 at 1:18 pm

      Information overload is a problem. One part of this is sorting out when to stop gathering information and to start processing it. For example, when I was working on my dissertation I had to decide when I had enough material. One trap that people sometimes get caught in is the information treadmill-there is always more info one can get.

      I’d say that another part of the problem is analogous to the food situation in the US. Just as there is an abundance of crappy food, there is a huge mass of crappy information. As with food, the really good information is less common and can be harder to find. But, as with food, people often prefer the crap. In short, we have a high volume of low quality information.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: