Solve for X. I have always encountered resistance to theoretical discussion and debate, both in the classroom and in the public square. Students and politicians fear it, voters have no patience for it, and reporters and pundits can't sell it. Americans expect anyone with a valid argument to simply "cut to the chase," and to "let the facts speak for themselves." Efforts to interpret facts contextually (i.e. the only intellectually honest way to do it) are assumed to be efforts to manipulate facts for personal gain, which is itself assumed to be contrary to the public interest. In other words, a healthy scepticism has been replaced by a very unhealthy cynicism, which actually works very well for those who really are trying to "fool some of the people some of the time."When John Adams called facts "stubborn things" factual disputes were indeed rare and short lived. There was a virtual consensus on the political objectivity of reason and logic, concepts apparently learned in school at some point in our past. Today, however, it may be better to consult Ronald Reagan who called facts "stupid things." The Great Communicator may have been at his most prescient in this flubbed line because these days factual disputes endure and often seem intractable. In fact, in modern American politics everyone does seem "entitled to their own facts." The clarification of theoretical premises, to say nothing about their relationship to the interpretation of facts, is an endangered species being kept alive in intellectual preserves called universities. It's way too dangerous out in the wild of American society and politics for such vulnerable creatures.
How did this happen? I have a theory and an example.
Americans have conflated the meaning and significance of truths and facts. Everybody's doing it. "Global warming is a fact!" Actually, it’s not a fact. It is, however, a theory supported by a huge majority of the applicable scientific community, making it a reasonable truth claim. The "theory" of evolution is in the same boat. Interestingly, this increasingly common logical misstep - treating well established truth claims as facts- may be a prime suspect in the mind blowing unreasonableness and stupidity run amuck in our present politics.
Because ideas like evolution and global warming are considered "true" by relevant expert communities, they are often treated, even sometimes referred to carelessly, as facts. While this may be fine in conversations with people who recognize the implied and unstated "for all intents and purposes" qualification, it is not fine for the majority of Americans who apparently only recognize such implied disclaimers when they already agree with the claim in question.
The ubiquity of this intellectual shortcut in the information overload of 21st Century life and politics may be doing a tremendous disservice to younger generations of Americans who seem to have never learned the intellectual route being shortened; making them likely suckers for two versions of a particular anti-intellectual argument that can be employed like a powerful one-two punch by a skilled rhetorician.
An argument that relies on the mistaken conflation of truth claims and factual claims can be used by a political, commercial, or even theological claimant to discredit his opponents "truth" claims by holding them to the appropriate intellectual standards for the verification of factual claims, while supporting and defending his own "truth" claims (which may even be intentionally mischaracterized as a fact) with the intellectual standards for evaluating a reasonable truth claim, which are much less rigorous.
In American politics, the political partisans use this intellectually disingenuous approach, continuously feeding it with deracinated "facts" in an ongoing effort to keep ordinary voters from seeing the forest for the trees. For the right, global warming is a hoax because summer was cooler this year, or because of any number of out of context facts which are piled up by politicians, talk show hosts, and op-ed columnists. Not to be outdone, America's left wingers trot out their endless "parade of horribles" in their efforts to discredit all things American or capitalistic. America is an evil empire because of the long- out of context- list of bad stuff our government has done.
Just today I was saddened by George Will's apparent agreement with Rush Limbaugh that global warming is a politically motivated hoax. Will, a conservative who still has intellectual credibility, trotted out what he called "inconvenient facts" that further reveal the big liberal lie that is global warming. Will attacks the messengers and the experts with lines like, "According to the Times, however, "scientists" say that "trying to communicate such scientific nuances to the public -- and to policymakers -- can be frustrating."
Here Will is employing a "hide in plain sight" approach to anti-intellectual persuasion here. He puts quotes around "scientists" and "trying to communicate such scientific nuances to the public -- and to policymakers -- can be frustrating" because he understands these to be reasonable claims that he nonetheless must discredit in order to achieve his rhetorical ends. His quotes are meant to signal a sort of "yeah right" sarcastic and incredulous response as if it were unreasonable to claim that scientists (i.e. the scientific community as a whole) were convinced of global warming. He quotes the next phrase to signal another baseless but emotionally powerful anti-intellectual response; namely that this phrase shows that these liberal scientists can't defend their arguments against “the facts" so they have to pretend it’s too complicated for "poor dumb average slobs to comprehend."
Good old faithful populist pandering. Is it any wonder that so many Americans believe so many ridiculous things? Will's approach even includes a built-in intellectual defense. When called out on his obviously unsubstantiated and unreasonable implied claims he can simply say that he didn't make any counter-factual claims, allowing him to continue his masquerade as a truth teller who deals only in facts, which (according to him) is all john and Jane Q. Public need to debunk "liberal lies."
I say, solve for X.