Facts are Overrated

In an editorial in today's New York Times (Trump’s Asymmetric Warfare) Charles M. Blow quotes from a 2010 Boston Globe piece titled How facts backfire:

quote:

---

"Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger."

---

He's mainly talking about politics, but I think it also applies to the creation/evolution debate. If it feels like we're not convincing many creationists then this might explain it: too many facts.Here's a quote from the Globe piece that many will find familiar, about confidence and knowledge having an inverse relationship:

quote:

---

"Perhaps more disturbingly, the ones who were the most confident they were right were by and large the ones who knew the least about the topic."

---

The piece also introduces, at least for me, a new term for "confirmation bias":

quote:

---

"If we believe something about the world, we are more likely to passively accept as truth any information that confirms our beliefs, and actively dismiss information that doesn’t. This is known as motivated reasoning."

---

--Percy

But given the power of "confirmation bias" or "motivated reasoning" or whatever we want to call it, I wonder how well it could be argued that being right is almost accidental, at least for your average person. It might help explain the fits and starts and advances and regresses of human progress.This reminds of the discussion in the PC Gone Too Far thread about military memorials where we discussed how much blame could be cast at people for conforming to and taking up the mores of their time and place in human history.--Percy

My point wasn't directed at the discussion's participants but at its subject. Expressing what I said differently, if facts barely matter and being right is accidental then the positions of the North and South on slavery likely had little to do with facts. In that case neither can take credit for being right or blame for being wrong.--Percy

The thread's premise isn't saying that facts don't matter or barely matter. It's saying that facts don't matter or barely matter in changing minds, and in fact can work in the opposite direction, especially for those with the least knowledge.I was only suggesting a look at the Civil War through the lens of that premise. Given the strength of the facts on the North's side one could reasonably have expected a process of gradual persuasion and accommodation, but it didn't happen. Instead both sides became more tenacious and uncompromising.--Percy

I believe it does produce a very worthwhile result, and it *is* what happened. This seems to be emphasizing a different context about which we likely agree. If someone decides to commit murder after being raised in a culture where murder is the ultimate crime then of course they aren't blameless.But what of people who merely believe what everyone else around them believes? If most people born and raised in the same circumstances would behave the same way (including us), what is the blame for? For sharing the same beliefs as everyone around them? For being born in the wrong time and place?There are special people able to rise above their circumstances, but it is no one's fault that most people lack these special qualities. If we blamed people for lacking special qualities then we may as well blame them for not being able to play a piano sonata or dunk a basketball.What is the worthwhile result? There are at least couple I can think of. One is that there are sociological forces at work that must be acknowledged, studied, understood. Another is a spiritual view that we are all God's children deserving of understanding and forgiveness.--Percy

But all of us *do* "do that." It's part of being human. Some of us are better at separating the wheat from the chaff when choosing our evidence, and some of us are better at incorporating valid evidence into our opinions, but none of us are objectivity machines processing evidence into correct conclusions. Plus evidence is often incomplete and/or inconclusive. That's not a premise I ever invoked, and I would argue against it. Northerners and Southerners likely strongly disagreed about the facts and what they implied. I don't think I've said anything about human nature that anyone would find surprising. People hold opinions that reflect the time and place where they live.--Percy

By the standards of today most of history is on the "wrong side of history." To me it makes more sense to make moral judgments about a time and place in history in its own context rather than by the standards of today. Well, yes, I read your posts, but in using the Civil War as an example I wasn't trying to make it the topic. You can believe the South was evil if you like, but while I don't share that belief I didn't want to rebut it and turn what was just an example into the main topic of discussion. No, that wasn't my premise. Quoting again from the Globe piece I cited in Message 1, "Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds." I cited the creation/evolution debate as an example. Later I argued that being right could be accidental (using the North and South in the Civil War as an example), more a product of environment, of time and place in history, than of facts. (I understand that you disagree about the Civil War example, that you believe the South evil and that facts showing them evil were readily available to them.) Okay. Quoting from the Globe piece again that was the reason for this thread: "Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds." Why are they wrong?--Percy

No, this wouldn't be correct. I pretty much agree with the article, but I did raise a speculative question, and the speculative nature of my question shouldn't be forgotten. As originally phrased in Message 5: When you thought I was saying something different I said it another way in Message 10: And you pretty much seemed to understand I was speculating when you acknowledged here that I said "if": The posts I was resisting answering seemed to trying to begin a discussion about the Civil War, but if there's something more on topic you'd like me to back up then I'd be happy to answer any questions. I don't think that posing a speculative question implies any conclusions, but it does seem an interesting possibility that the relationship between facts and being right is a lot more tenuous than is commonly thought. We on the evolution side may believe we were convinced by the facts, but if we'd been born into a different religion or part of the country maybe we'd accept creationism and believe we were convinced by the facts. Same person, same confidence that the facts led us to our beliefs, but different and opposing beliefs.--Percy

I'll respond to both Message 29 and Message 30 in this one post. I don't really have a position. I have a speculative question that seems worth exploring, and so I'm willing to argue the position to see where it goes. Forgiveness requires assuming a position of moral superiority where it is judged a wrong has been committed, and forgiveness runs both ways. By and large the Civil War is no longer much in the public awareness here in the North, but living where you do you're well aware that there are still hard feelings in the South even all these 151 years later. I've spent time in Richmond and Charleston, and the anti-North sentiment was impossible to miss. If the South has forgiven the North for the Civil War it was not apparent to me. You're right that there are elements of PC in this position, and now I'll throw out the term "moral relativism." Who are we to judge the South for having slaves? Today we judge slavery wrong, but at one time we judged raw capitalism wrong because in its worst expressions it made slaves of employees, so laws were passed to make capitalism palatable.With the right laws slavery could be made equally palatable. The slave owner provides room and board and clothing and spending money in return for services, and laws restrict the number of hours the slave can work, regulate sales and living conditions, require keeping families together, require education for children, etc. With these legal reforms now slavery begins to look like just another type of economic opportunity, like the military, apprenticeship, indenturement, etc. Then it becomes just an issue of whether one person owning another person is right or wrong, proper or evil. Of those who judge it evil one must ask which facts say it's evil. Well, yes, but I was thinking more generally, it was just an example of a threat to our record of history, and I quoted Santayana's warning about the dangers of forgetting history. But there's a flip side to war memorials. In the case of the memorial in question a group decided to erect a memorial of that appearance in that location 131 years ago. Does that memorial then remain unchanged and in place in perpetuity? Do the people of today not have a say over what stands on their land? Certainly the law sides mostly with current owners, but consideration of things like history and cemeteries and religious sacred ground and so forth are also written into law.And so I lament any loss of history but recognize that one generation should not have an unchallengeable right to co-opt for all subsequent generations what exists on a spot of land. But isn't it a form of arrogance for subsequent generations to bestow upon themselves the right of judgment? We can say that by today's standards they were wrong and ignorant, and that it's appalling when people today exhibit such poor judgment and knowledge, but concerning the past isn't the more appropriate approach to examine it in context with its social and cultural backdrop and with the information they had available at the time? It doesn't seem an issue of judgment or forgiveness but just one of understanding the past as well as possible.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Then this is the primary difference between us. I believe that people should be studied within the context of their time and place in history. There's that word "judgment" again. When it comes to history, I think qualities like knowledge and insight should have key roles, not judgment. I don't see a conundrum, either - it was more an analogy. Many of the abuses of capitalism, primarily exploitation of labor, but also monopolies, use of public resources, etc., have been addressed by passing laws. What if the abuses of slavery were addressed in the same way so that slavery became just another form of economic opportunity, like the military, apprenticeship, indenturement, employment, college, etc. With all qualities but one gone that make slavery repugnant and evil in your eyes, what are the facts that make ownership of human beings morally wrong?But the key question is whether people deserve a lot less credit for being right or blame for being wrong than is commonly thought. Were people evil who believed in witches and killed those they believed were witches? Were people good who believed the accused were not witches? Or did confirmation bias and motivated reasoning combined in substantial measure with background, education, social millieu, etc., (in other words, not facts) lead each side to their conclusions, making selection of a position, whether right or wrong, largely one of accident?--Percy

Sure, as long as we're talking about factual analysis and not moral judgments based on modern western sensibilities. Sure, but again, only if we're talking about critical judgment and not moral judgment. I don't see a connection between facts and moral judgments. It does far more than shed light on the topic. It is at the topic's core. What facts make slavery evil? Most people would include things like overwork, beatings, family break ups, and so forth, but none of these things are inherent to slavery. Only human beings as property is inherent. What facts make that evil? That wasn't my point. That capitalism became much more civilized over time urges consideration of how we might feel about slavery had it become similarly much more civilized over time, particularly if we're requiring that conclusions be supported by facts.Just so we don't forget the actual topic, I think the current discussion developed out of my use of the North and South before and during the Civll War as an example of my belief that people form their opinions based upon their time and place in history, not facts, and with confirmation bias and motivated reasoning playing a role. The opinions accepted by the average person are largely a product of forces far outside themselves and are not a measure of any inherent qualities of good or evil.--Percy

It doesn't feel to me like the position you're disagreeing with is the one I'm expressing. This reply seems to a different argument than the one I made. Very briefly this time, I believe moral judgments don't derive from facts. I also believe that North/South attitudes about slavery formed first, and the search for supposed supporting "facts" came later in a process that included confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. The average person was part of my introduction of this subtopic. From my Message 5: I've always been thinking about this in terms of individuals, the average people of the North and South. When you used the term "evil," that's who I assumed you were referring to.AbE: Whoa! Your message way changed. I shouldn't watch tennis while trying to reply, takes too long.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.Edited by Percy, : Typo.

I have no problem with each generation forming its own opinions of the past. What I've actually disagreed with is judgments of the people of that period who accepted and argued in favor of slavery as evil. People in general are pretty much the same the world over. They form their opinions based on where and when they live, and then they seek facts and rationalizations for them. Take a stauch pro-slavery Southerner, then go back in time and instead raise him in the North surrounded by anti-slavery Northerners and with economic opportunities that don't involve slavery and it will yield a person of diametrically opposite beliefs. What you call evil Pro-slavery views were not inherent in this person, they were added later, and he proved equally able to adopt anti-slavery views if raised in the Northern context. So how could he be evil? What Southern "falsification of history" are you referring to? Whatever it is, isn't it now a part of the historical record? Isn't it worth its weight in gold as a record of Southern thought? There's no lying. Aged memorials and battlefields and writings and homes and cemeteries from another time don't speak for us. What preserving them does say is that we value history.--Percy

Replying to both Message 45 and Message 46... Civil War battlefields and cemeteries often include many old memorials and placards and so forth. I was just trying to be thorough about possible sources of information from the past. Voices from the past telling us what they truly believed are not lies, and state support from over a hundred years ago didn't mean endorsement of slavery then nor state support today. Are there particular "lies" you're referring to, or is this just a general objection to Southern memorials to the Civil War?In Message 46 about evil you say: I think your point of disagreement is not to anything I'm saying. Not my point, and I disagree. Let me try another example of what I mean. Let's say future generations come to see driving a car with an internal combustion engine as evil. Are you evil? Am I evil? Are all the people of the 20th century evil? Or are they and we products of our time and place in history doing the best we can.In the same way, I just feel that your judgment of the people of the South as evil is erroneously simplistic at best.--Percy

This is actually enough to answer my question: You evidently believe it legitimate, given the right grounds, for future generations to judge you evil. Interesting.Because it comes up in your next paragraph I'll first state that I could never judge anyone or anything evil. The word "evil" is so subjective and has such a broad scope of meaning that I reserve it for contexts that do not involve objectively assessing facts to arrive at conclusions. And when the word "evil" is applied to people it becomes a judgment of their character that goes far beyond their views on specific issues like slavery. I would say the program was wrong for ethical and moral reasons. If you're using "evil" in this sense then I guess we could say we agree on this particular issue, though I don't feel comfortable saying that because of my vocabulary objection. While in this case you're applying the word "evil" to a thing rather than to people, it was people who created the program. I don't consider, "I'm offended that you're considering naming this building for this horrible person," to be a valid argument. I think the valid argument is that people who committed moral and ethical wrongs should not be honored with their name on a building.--Percy