Soapbox V - Truth or Fact

"I didn't stick to the facts - I stuck to the truth." - Colson Whitehead, interviewed on NPR Weekend Edition

That line was uttered by the author of The Underground Railroad in describing his approach to writing a book based in part on history and in large part on fiction. When I heard it in a podcast, the line struck a chord with me. Could that be part of the explanation of how social and political narratives survive contradictory evidence? Why emotion seems to overwhelm logic or reason? Why, when facts prove a premise to be false, the premise marches on?

It depends on how truth is defined, I suppose.

• that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

  noun: the truth

  "tell me the truth"

  synonyms:

  what actually happened, the case, so; More
• a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

  plural noun: truths

  "the emergence of scientific truths"

  
  

From what I can tell, it's impossible to stick to the truth without sticking to the facts. Perhaps the growing consensus is that the second definition, minus the fact part, is more relevant - that truth is "a belief that is accepted as true." If you can get enough folks to believe, then the facts don't matter. That could be why so much of what fills our newspapers and network news seems lacking in common sense or logic.

The author of The Underground Railroad was more than likely referring to his interpretation of the truth of the nature of things during the period when slavery was practiced in the U.S.,. His truth was perhaps based on the facts of the time, ignoring the facts of the meantime. That way truth can be based on fact, but interpreted in a way that ignores a preponderance of other facts, leading to a corrupt conclusion. (Disclaimer - I have not read the book, so don't know if this is the case.) How that can happen was explained in a TED talk I listened to recently describing the "soldiers mindset."

Julie Galef explains motivated reasoning in two dimensions - the Soldier mindset and the Scout mindset. I highly encourage you to listen to the talk at Why you think you're right - even if you're wrong (only 11 minutes) for the details, which I won't repeat here. The Soldier mindset is one in which the drive is to attack or defend ideas, trying to make some ideas win, and others lose. I think that mindset is gaining ground over one that values objectivity and respect, where virtue is found in seeking or accepting information that might challenge your own beliefs or assumptions - the Scout mindset.

In inferential statistics, and a central task in the modern practice of science, the null hypothesis represents a default position that disproves the validity of a hypothesis. In other words, the focus is on discovering facts that would undermine as specific premise or hypothesis, rather than those that might support that hypothesis. In the soldiers mindset, only facts that support a belief are recognized. Those that undermine a belief are attacked - often viciously. That seems to represent the preponderance of our political discourse - extended, of course, to personal attacks. That practice is not rightfully attributed to either conservative or liberal, democrat or republican. It's practiced by all.

Our social environment is moving the same direction. Not that it hasn't always existed in the past, just that it's becoming more extreme, allowing narratives to become institutionalized in spite of the facts - as beliefs become truths.

'nuff said.... for now.