October 27, 2004
A FACT IS NOT A TRUTH:
Pants on Fire?: Reality to George W. Bush is not about facts, but about higher meta-truths. (NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, 10/27/04, NY Times)
[I]'m convinced that Mr. Bush is not only smarter, but also a better man than his critics believe. Most important, he's not a panderer. While Mr. Kerry zigs and zags on trade and Middle East policy, Mr. Bush has a core of values and provides genuine leadership (typically, I believe, in the wrong direction, by trying to reshape America and the world according to a far-right agenda).One example is Mr. Bush's determination since 9/11 to add to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, even though this pushes up gasoline prices. Mr. Bush's approach is foolish economically, and it is crazy politically. Yet his grim willingness to raise gas prices during his re-election campaign underscores a solidity of character and convictions.
But that's also the problem with his administration: his convictions are so solid that they're inflexible and utterly impervious to reality. When Mr. Bush pumped up the intelligence on Iraqi W.M.D., his exaggerations reflected the overriding truth as he saw it - that Saddam Hussein was a menace. I think Mr. Bush considered himself truthful, even when he wasn't factual.
Oddly enough, or appropriately enough, what Mr. Kristof illustrates here is that facts aren't truths. The notion that because Saddam didn't have as much WMD as the CIA thought he did in March 2003 he wasn't a menace is lunatic on its face. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 27, 2004 8:51 AM
"Facts aren't truths".
Well, ok. But here one must be careful not to drift casually into wishy-washy sixth-form faux-logic.
"Saddam didn't have as much WMD as the CIA thought" is a true fact.
"Saddam was nontheless a menace" is also a true fact.
All it means is that some assertions which appear to contradict other assertions often turn out not to contradict them after all, and both are true.
Posted by: Brit at October 27, 2004 9:03 AMYes, a fact is not a truth.
Posted by: oj at October 27, 2004 9:15 AMLike I said, ok.
Posted by: Brit at October 27, 2004 9:16 AMSo isn't it odd that the world's greatest newspaper just ran a whole column saying a fact is a truth?
Posted by: oj at October 27, 2004 9:23 AMA fact must be true to be a fact. But it need not represent the whole truth of an issue.
The example above illustrates this. Others are easy to come by. It is a fact that Indian cricketer Sachin Tendulkar scored poorly in his last innings against Australia. It is nonetheless true that he is the best batsman on either team.
OJ, I eagerly anticipate the prospect of following you down the meandering paths of your unique brand of logic on this one.
Posted by: Brit at October 27, 2004 9:38 AMSo the fact of his poor hitting contradicts the truth of his being an excellent hitter--the fact is not the truth.
Posted by: oj at October 27, 2004 9:49 AMNo. The fact of his poor batting in this instance might appear, to the uneducated eye, to contradict the assertion that Tendulkar is in general the best batsman.
But really it does not contradict it, as a glance at the batting averages will confirm.
Therefore, I hold this truth to be self-evident: that in fact the truth is that both facts are true.
Posted by: Brit at October 27, 2004 10:08 AMThe first is a fact--that he batted poorly in an instance--the latter is a truth--that he's a good batsman.
Posted by: oj at October 27, 2004 10:12 AMWhere 'truth' is used to refer the broader picture, and 'fact' refers to related, sometimes apparently contradictory (but ultimately non-falsifying) instances, then yes, I can live with a distinction betwixt the two concepts.
In this sense a fact must be true, but a 'truth' may be composed of many facts.
Not sure there's any more mileage in this one, but if anyone can find it, you can.
Posted by: Brit at October 27, 2004 10:22 AMAin't that the truth...
Posted by: oj at October 27, 2004 10:27 AMOJ:
That being the case I assume it's OK for Dan Rather to manufacture "facts" to present the "truth".
Posted by: Jeff at October 27, 2004 10:45 AMA manufactured fact isn't even a fact, let alone a truth.
Posted by: oj at October 27, 2004 10:47 AMTruth or facts, notwithstanding, Nicholas Kristof is priceless.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at October 27, 2004 11:22 AMThe problem is the basis upon which one decides 'truth.'
They had better, in the end, be based on facts.
Orrin asserts, over and over, for example, that Shia are democrats.
It's certainly a fact that no Shia have ever behaved like democrats, and it might be a fact that the reason is not that they didn't want to but were prevented.
But it might also be a fact that they don't give a hoot about democracy.
And without evidence, there is no way to evaluate whether it is either factual or a 'truth.'
It's a pretty good bet, though, that all 'truths' based on superstition are unreliable.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 28, 2004 12:18 AMYou mean besides the Iranians and Iraqis?
Posted by: oj at October 28, 2004 12:25 AM