I wrote this in January 2017 but I think it is relevant also:
One of the
things I encounter sometimes as a philosophy professor is students who sign up
for my class because they want to take something “where there are no right or
wrong answers.” They are so disappointed
when I point out that no such thing exists in the entire universe. We do not always know the answer, but that
does not mean there is no answer. Maybe
nothing in the intellectual world is more arrogant than thinking that if we do
not know an answer, it must not exist.
I use this
analogy to make my point. I say, suppose
this is an algebra class, and I give you a difficult problem on an exam. Let’s say there are 20 students in the class,
and they come up with 20 different answers.
I ask the students, “Is it a certainty that one of the 20 answers is the
correct one?” They know that is not a
certainty. It is within the realm of
possibility that all 20 got the problem wrong!
Next, I explain,
that if we are able to judge that an answer is wrong, then of necessity some
answer must be right. I am using a math
analogy to explain what my mentor, D. Elton Trueblood, taught me about the law
of non-contradiction:
“Two
contradictory statements cannot both be true but they can both be false.”
For example,
suppose I said I was born in 1963, and sometime later I claimed I was born in
1957. Now, I am speaking strictly of
biological birth here. Both of those
statements cannot be true. In fact,
neither of them are true because I was born in 1959.
Trueblood said
the law of non-contradiction means that error is a certainty. He use to ask people to say to themselves
“errors happen.” Now, he would say, that
statement is either true or false. If it
is true, then we know errors happen, but if it is false, then the statement
itself is in error, and therefore we still know errors happen. And, having shown the fact of error, he
concludes that it is logically necessary that truth exists. We may not always know what the truth is, but
it is logically necessary that truth exists.
I have many
concerns about the new President, his administration, and where we are
headed. I am not for “free trade”, I am
for “fair trade”…the idea known as free trade exploits people on both ends of
the trading partnership. I abhor
it. The idea of tariffs suits me
fine. But in all honesty, that is about
the only area of agreement I have with President Trump. He is for gun rights, I would abolish the 2nd
amendment. He thinks Obamacare went too
far, I think it did not go far enough.
He is for the Keystone Pipeline, I am against it. He wants to cut taxes on the rich, I want to
significantly raise them. He wants a nuclear
arms race, I want the US to pursue unilateral nuclear disarmament. And so on…
All of these are
perfectly legitimate positions for people to have, on both sides…and we can
have a free and open debate about any of them, and let the American people
decide which way we will go. That is
fine.
I abhor many of
President Trump’s policy ideas, but none of that is what worries me about the
future of our country. What worries me
more than anything is this idea of “alternative facts.” If someone believes in alternative facts they
do not believe in the law of non-contradiction.
And if there are no facts, facts cannot be debated.
This
alternate reality did not begin with the inauguration of a new President. It did not begin with his campaign in the
summer of 2015. It has been with us for
a while, as the popularity of radio personalities like Alex Jones attests. I believe the reason we ended up with a
post-fact President is that we have been becoming, for some time now, a post
fact society…where “I have my truth and you have your truth.” That statement is blasphemous to me, I think
it rapes the word truth, and renders it practically useless. Francis Schaeffer, a philosopher with whom I
mostly disagree, said one thing which I think any thinking person should agree
with—we need to be able to talk in terms of what he calls “true” truth!
In reality—no
pun intended—I do not think anyone can consistently live as though they do not
believe in facts. This is why President
Trump, in my view, is forbidding the EPA and government funded climate science
from presenting their findings to the public.
The administration might appeal to alternative facts, but we all know
alternative facts are in fact not facts—they are opinions. When actual facts infringe upon the opinions
of this crowd, they become frightened and do all they can to obfuscate the
truth.
If I were going
to organize a march on Washington, it would be for this cause: Facts are facts. Alternative facts are not facts. Truth exists.
Truth is not invented, it is discovered.
We can debate
healthcare, the concerns of women over this administration's policies, immigration,
jobs, economics, LGBT concerns, the needs of the disabled, etc. And we need desperately to have those
debates. But none of those debates will
actually happen until we can resolve the issue of facts: Facts are facts. Alternative facts are not facts. Truth exists.
Truth is not invented, it is discovered.
The suggestion
that there are alternative facts may be the most disturbing thing ever said by
a presidential administration. If there
are alternative facts, there are no moral mandates incumbent on anyone.
This suggestion
alone accounts for why, in the eyes of this philosopher, this administration is
going to be the most immoral one in US history.
No comments:
Post a Comment