No, this isn’t a silly philosophical or academic question.
I know that “facts” – by dictionary definition – do exist. In theory: yes, there are facts.
But I’m talking about facts in reality. In actual practice.
I think those kinds of facts are much harder to come by. And in our always-on, digital society, facts are quickly becoming extinct.
It’s a little like the aphorism, “A man with a watch always knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never quite sure.”
We are living in an age where everyone has multiple ways to tell the time. We are living in an age where the definition of the word “literally” also means “figuratively.”
I’m not making this up.
Webster’s Dictionary, Macmillan, Cambridge and even Google’s dictionaries all have added “figuratively” as a secondary meaning of the word literally, which by definition means “not figuratively.”
So: if a word can mean what it means, and also the opposite of what it means, where are we?
This isn’t particularly new. I’m reminded of Bill Clinton’s legal-ese response to questioning about his being in a relationship with Monica Lewinsky, when Clinton famously said, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
Well said, Bill. It sure does.
This is the world we live in. Now, you may be tempted to simply laugh this off as politicians being politicians, or word-nerds fighting amongst themselves. Yes, politicians lie and evade. And yes, the English language has evolved for hundreds of years, and the definition of words can change over time.
So, what else is new?
I’ll tell you.
What’s new is complexity.
Our society has become so complex that it is now vastly beyond the ability of the average person to make sense of what is real, and what is not.
Don’t believe me?
Here are a few items of note.
Exponential Growth in Information
Until the 1900s, it was estimated that human knowledge doubled every 2 centuries. In other words, the measurable “sum total” of all data discovered, written and catalogued by humankind, doubled about every 200 years.
Today, human-collected knowledge doubles about every 13 months.
In a few years, this data will double every 12 hours.
How can the human brain comprehend all that information? Of course, it can’t. We will task computers and artificial intelligence (AI) with the job of assimilating and interpreting all that data. Thus, our reality will increasingly be filtered by machines.
Humans Have Trouble Detecting Fact From Fiction
This rise of fake news is an interesting phenomenon, and its insidious impact is not limited to uneducated or gullible people. In fact, a study at Stanford University recently found that both university students and PhD-level historians were easily fooled by fake news stories posted online. These scholars were not saved from bad info by their experience, education and training.
One bright side to the study: professional fact-checkers were able to spot fake news articles at a much higher rate than the academics. As trained skeptics, the fact-checkers used their research know-how and internet savvy to ferret out the fake news sources. Maybe they can teach the PhDs a few tricks.
Still, the study’s authors concluded that “Very intelligent people were bamboozled by the ruses that are part of the tool kit of digital deception today.”
Even Experts Can’t Agree
How many times have you witnessed a TV news program or crime drama that has “dueling experts,” each with a different opinion on the same data? Or, pundits arguing over whether the data are accurate to begin with? As mentioned above, the more clocks we have, the less sure we are what time it is.
This isn’t just entertaining television. Two years ago, the editor of one of the most well respected medical journals in the world lamented that a lot of published research is unreliable at best, if not completely false. “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue,” said the esteemed Dr. Richard Horton, who added that “science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
So, maybe half of published medical studies are false. I wonder which half?
Probably, the half that are published by companies or organizations I don’t like.
Seriously.
Here’s an example. In 2016, an analysis of studies exploring health effects of sugary soda consumption found a nearly 100% probability that – if a study was funded by sugar-sweetened beverage companies – it found no link between sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and poor metabolic health. On the other hand, just 2.9% of studies that did find a link between sugary beverages and poor health were underwritten by the sugar-sweetened beverage industry.
Is it any wonder public trust in institutions is hovering near an all-time low?
Facts with an Agenda
And yet, where do most people obtain their facts? As children, most of us start learning from our parents. In school, teachers and textbooks are good sources of facts. As we get older, our friends and classmates replace our parents and teachers as “better” information sources. Beyond school, there are government agencies, corporations, the news media, and nonprofits of various stripes, lobbying groups, think-tanks and the like (many lump these under the acronym NGOs, which stands for non-governmental organizations).
To recap, our sources for facts include:
- Parents
- Teachers
- Textbooks
- Friends
- Government
- Media
- Businesses
- NGOs
Now, take a quick glance at my list above. Put an imaginary “check mark” next to all the unbiased sources.
Finished? I don’t know about you, but I’d be hard-pressed to trust any of those sources for 100% unbiased information. Every entity listed above is comprised of individuals with agendas. While they may be perfectly well-intentioned, our agendas and biases (conscious or not) cause us to prefer some facts over others, to “de-emphasize,” ignore or undermine data that do not suit us. This happens all time. But whether facts are bent, hidden or trumpeted due to worldview or expedience, the truth is … well, it’s messy.
As a public school student, I lost count of how many times my teachers would complain about the textbooks and course materials they were forced to use by the school or district. This phenomenon (teachers hating the text) continued unabated from roughly 6th grade through college. It wasn’t every teacher in every class, but it was very common. I use this example not because I think textbook publishers are evil or teachers are persnickety, but because something as simple and innocuous (and necessary) as basic education is fraught with nuance, complexity and controversy.
Take, for example the widely known “fact” that U.S. public schools are inferior to their first-world counterparts overseas. That knowledge is placed in considerable doubt when faced with alternative facts, which actually place American schools among the best in the world, after removing appropriate variables to get a more apples-to-apples comparison. But this isn’t an education blog and I’m no academic expert, so let’s look at some other examples.
We’ve often been told the scientific community is nearly unanimous in its support of climate change data pointing to human-caused warming of global temperatures. Most people agree, and global warming skeptics are called “fringe scientists” or deniers, often lumped in with folks who still think the earth is flat.
On the other hand, there’s also near-universal scientific support for the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). But here, many if not most regular folks are likely to disagree with the scientific community. What’s more, they happily pay more for foods that are certified non-GMO. Are people being tricked by the food companies? If so, which ones: the GMO-producers or the “organic” companies that are charging much more money for what is essentially the same product?
Whom do you trust? And why are some science-deniers labeled pariahs, while others are celebrated?
The short answer: I don’t know.
And as I wrote in my previous blog, I have a real problem with how facts are being used to divide us, create controversy, sell products, preserve power, exploit one group vs. another, and basically undermine any sense of humanity, collegiality and community.
The scarcity of facts (and those pesky word meanings) leads me to ask some uncomfortable questions:
- If we can’t agree on facts, how can we have informed debate or even a basic exchange of ideas?
- Without facts, what difference does it make if we get our news from CNN or Snapchat?
- If we don’t trust our government or scientists or our neighbors to get their facts straight, is there any hope for civilized society?
- If people are increasingly ignorant of reality, through no fault of their own, how can they adapt to the demands of a rapidly changing world?
- Will we all be forced to “play along” with whatever reality the powers-that-be are promulgating at the time, keeping our true thoughts private?
Two Final Thoughts
First, the decay (and eventual death) of facts is giving rise to the Age of Feelings. We are living in a culture where what a person feels, or believes in their heart, is more important than what is true. I think it began a few years ago when the phrase “my truth” started getting thrown around. This is word-nerdy, but again, the definition of the word “truth” does not jibe with a concept of multiple “truths.” Something cannot be true and also not true, or only half-true. There cannot be “your truth” and “my truth” … there is simply truth. As truth – and its close cousin, the fact – continue their decline, then more and more, feelings will rule us and dominate our world.
Second, we have to stop embracing certainty and equating our facts with some sort of moral superiority. We should hold facts in high esteem, but we should not become endeared to them, as a family pet. Facts are, by their nature, unemotional (see above). Sometimes “facts” are disproved based on new or better information. Thus, let us not denigrate or humiliate others whom we believe are misinformed. ALL OF US are misinformed about many, many things. As the movie Wonder put it, when faced with a choice between being right and being kind, choose to be kind.
End Note: I’m painfully aware that I’ve alluded to several studies here, while telling you that studies are unreliable. That’s my whole point. Neither the average person, nor so-called experts, can be counted on to get their facts straight. Our world is drowning in endless complexity. So, give your fellow humans a break!
