Fact v Truth
It was the top of the 8th inning in game 1 of the 1955 World Series.
The Yankees were leading by two runs with two outs and a 1-0 count on pinch-hitter Frank Kellert, Robinson broke for home against Yanks left-hander Whitey Ford.
Ford went through with his over-the-head windup delivery and made a precise throw home to Berra, who was ready to lay the tag on Robinson, who slid in feet first. Robinson was quickly called safe by home-plate umpire Bill Summers, and Berra, and the vast majority of the 64,00 home fans in attendance at Yankee Stadium that day, were incensed.
Berra never quite let it go (though the Yankees won that game, 6-5, the Dodgers won the World Series in seven games). In fact, according to Politico, once after President Barack Obama mentioned Robinson’s famous steal of home in 2010, Berra sent the president a signed photo of the play.
A fact is something that’s indisputable, based on empirical research and quantifiable measures. Facts go beyond theories. They’re proven through calculation and experience, or they’re something that definitively occurred in the past. Truth is entirely different; it may include fact, but it can also include belief.
If the ‘truth’ lies in a closely held belief, facts are irrelevant and simply don’t matter.
There are millions of American voters who are enthralled with conspiracy theories and political lies such that American Democracy is facing its greatest existential threat from within.
The questions regarding resolution of the issues seem persistent and intractable. Among these questions is a salient interrogatory that seems to be close to, or at, the heart of the matter:
If it is true that you can’t overcome an emotional connection with a rational argument, where do we go from there?
BTW
To this day, you would be hard pressed to find a Yankee fan who would relent and accept the fact of the umpire’s call at the plate.
Most Yankee fans believed Robinson to be out. Some would insist that he was out by a mile…
As far as I’m concerned, Robinson didn’t beat the throw…
The truth is, he beat the tag.
But then, I’ve been a fan of Jackie Robinson and the Dodgers all of my life….
05/03/2021 @ 1:37 am
I slowed the YouTube video down. I think Berra was right. I’m not a baseball fan. My father was sort of a Dodger fan. He grew up in the Bronx but being a Yankee fan was too easy.
This is well written.
05/03/2021 @ 5:06 am
Did you contemplate the question?:
“If it is true that you can’t overcome an emotional connection with a rational argument, where do we go from there?”
05/03/2021 @ 8:10 am
Of course, though I’ve been contemplating it before now.
It’s a twofold answer, or perhaps a two pronged answer. And it won’t work with everyone, possibly not the majority. One is to make their position so logically untenable to them that they can’t hold it even if they want to. Another is to fight emotion with emotion and concentrate on the emotional negatives of their position. What does it mean to be led by someone who thinks sacrifice is for suckers? Work on what it takes to disillusion them. There was a recent poll about how well Biden is doing and one of his biggest positives is COVID. Go to what Trump’s negatives mean, what his actions meant about suitability.
Have you seen a recent WaPo article about a public radio station in Harrisburg? They take an interesting stance, actually a great one, a necessary one. When it comes to the Capitol break in, they never let their audience forget. If they mention the name of a legislator who protected Trump in the aftermath, they say that whenever that legislator’s name is mentioned on the air. They don’t interview those guys. They refuse to let this last only one news cycle. They are nearly alone in taking their FourthEstate responsibilities seriously and they are the blueprint for what this country needs. WITF. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/the-politicians-who-tried-to-overturn-an-election–and-the-local-news-team-that-wont-let-anyone-forget-it/2021/05/01/cc8764f6-a91e-11eb-8d25-7b30e74923ea_story.html
05/03/2021 @ 8:35 am
I’ve been contemplating one tack to take in business. Being vaccinated, I can now safely (for them and me) call on my customers. I can’t get too political and continue to either do business or keep my influence, so it’s a careful line. If I run into the COVID Was Exaggerated line, I’ll ask them if their doctors say that. The answer is likely to be that they don’t trust their doctors, perhaps because of what they charge and how they’re looking out for themselves. At this point my tack will be “You just made the case for trunk slammers.” I’m in commercial A-V. It’s a technical field where expertise is sometimes not trusted because the customers suffer from sticker shock, not understanding what this stuff really costs and thinking they’re being asked to spend money on unnecessary stuff, so they either arbitrarily don’t buy some parts, not understanding that they won’t be happy if they don’t, or they’ll turn to trunk slammers, less expensive contractors who are less expensive because they don’t know what they’re doing. Either process results in the customer spending less money but on a solution that doesn’t satisfy them, so now these costs are sunk and they can’t afford a good solution, having wasted too much money on a bad one. And my customers are generally charging fair prices for what’s provided. In other words, they’re in an analogous role to doctors. If they don’t trust doctors, they are arguing against their own living by saying that expertise isn’t critical and should be discounted. This goes for any technical field. Real expertise costs money, as do real solutions. I’m not saying not to question but to simply discount expertise is to behave like your worst customers.
05/03/2021 @ 9:38 am
The first order of business for demagogues is to discredit expertise.
Trump’s success has been over the top in that regard.
Our problem is in determining whether his success is due to deficiencies in the education of the general population or deficiencies in the intelligence and intellectual capacity of his followers and supporters.
Keeping in mind that while we can address ignorance, we can’t fix stupid.
05/03/2021 @ 11:03 pm
It’s due to people being allowed to get away with wishful thinking.
05/04/2021 @ 12:02 am
Kosh;
‘allowed’ or ‘encouraged’?
05/03/2021 @ 9:06 pm
Help me to understand the distinction you’re making between fact and truth. The point is, I can’t tell what you are saying, exactly.
First, regarding facts. Facts exist independent of perception or experience. A good way to construct this mentally is with the 4 dimensions of our known universe. Those 4 dimensions are the x,y,z axes and time. Only one thing can occupy a single coordinate designated by x,y,z, and at a given point in time. A thing can occupy the same coordinate before, or after, but not during. These are facts, and the concept described represents a fact. You are located in 4 specific coordinates at this moment, as am I. A specific grain of sand somewhere on Jupiter exists in such coordinates, and that is a fact, although it has not been experienced, perceived, or proved. It is objective fact.
The same space time addresses exist for Jackie Robinson, the ball, and the catcher’s tag. They are all factual, although they may not be known. What we have officially is the event ruled by the perception of the umpire. That may or may not be factual. It may be known, or it is unknowable.
A belief that conflicts with the actual fact of the coordinates is not true, and therefore can not be truth. If it conflicts with the facts, it is erroneous. “Subjective truth” isn’t truth. It is an idiom referring to a distinctly different thing. Facts do not require belief, and neither does objective truth. They exist before experience or perception.
It seems to me, as I write this, that you are talking about knowledge. A fact can’t be known without experience or perception, and perception is inherently flawed. But a fact can exist before it can be known. It exists independent of knowledge. It precedes knowledge. And truth is a direct, unaltered relationship to facts, not to knowledge.
05/03/2021 @ 10:48 pm
“What we have officially is the event ruled by the perception of the umpire.”
Precisely!
The definitions of fact and truth are composites gleaned from reviewing several definitions.
Most of which are somewhat utilitarian in orientation and not nearly as esoteric as those you posit here.
The event as shown and described here which includes the umpire’s call becomes “historical fact” as a function of how we use information and knowledge.
The record shows that Trump lost the election. His defeat has become “historical fact”.
The problem is thousands of Yankee fans believe Robinson to have been out despite the umpire’s call, and millions of Trump followers and supporters believe Trump won the election despite the calls of election auditors and court judges.
Your approach to distinguishing between fact, truth, and knowledge while fascinating and informative would not be useful in dealing with recalcitrant Yankee fans or Trump loyalists in my opinion.
These people live in world’s of “alternative facts” and hold different and opposing “truths” to be self evident.
The question is:
“If it is true that you can’t overcome an emotional connection with a rational argument, where do we go from there?”
If you can make your construct work in response to the question by all means, be my guest, have at it.
Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to comment…
05/04/2021 @ 5:10 am
As I was writing my question, it occurred to me that it was an epistemological question, and not as the title stated. Another example that occurred to me was the OJ Simpson murder trial and verdict. In the immediate aftermath, and still today, people say OJ was “guilty of murder”. What I always answered is, what we know is that OJ was acquitted of murder. Legally, he remains innocent. Most people have the hardest time accepting this. Their answer remains entirely in the “wish” category.
The same applies to the Trump question. Those who claim that Trump won do so in opposition to the evidence, and the certified result. Those are facts of history as well, and their reactions actually acknowledge that the thing happened, and that they reject the result, just like Yankee fans disputing the call, although the election result has more supporting evidence.
An opposing “truth” isn’t truth, no matter what they call it. The way we address the issue to “Trump fans” is the way to address it to everyone else in history. Like Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “every9one is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
Trump isn’t the first to dispute facts and evidence, and he wont be the last. The answer is to understand the nobility of truth and facts on one side, and the contaminated malleability of opinion on the other. We use things like atomic clocks because the measure of movement of an atom across a vacuum is stable and known, and can be expressed in a measurement of time that is reliably stable. The greatest Swiss watch maker’s hand can’t approach that consistency. The way we address opinion (or wishful thinking) is to understand the difference.
05/03/2021 @ 11:05 pm
Ron means perceived truth. Sort of related to Official Truth. I can figure that out from context.
05/03/2021 @ 11:51 pm
Thanks Kosh…
05/04/2021 @ 5:46 am
Another thing occurs to me about those who use “wishful thinking”. If you define that as “your own facts”, as Moynihan did, then you allow yourself a certain flexibility that those who defer to facts do not have. The thing is, that flexibility is also a vulnerability to the “wishful” thinker.
Essentially, the wish can be used as bait to entrap the one with the wish. A carefully camouflaged object of desire, whatever that may be, will cause the wisher to commit some desired action that the one who sets the bait requires. The baited “wisher” is the biggest loser in this event because he lost a strict understanding about what is real. “Trump fans” make a useful example here because they value Trump in a particular way. Trump offers himself to them for certain things. Some were asked to storm the Capitol. They did so willingly. Now many of them are on trial. One has pleaded guilty on the intent to commit murder. The question is, did Trump want to be made President from this? Probably not. What he wants is the demonstration because he makes money from it. He is baiting his own fans, and then he hooks them, reels in their donations, and uses their money.
The process represents several problems for the country. One is the erosion of the democratic process. The solution for those wanting to maintain it is stick to rules and evidence. Wishing, on the part of Trump’s supporters, makes them vulnerable to being exploited in a variety of ways. That lesson may take time for some to realize, but it is the same lesson that cult members lose when the magical thing of their desires does not materialize. Reality is reliable, and wishful thinking that deviates from reality is not.
05/04/2021 @ 6:31 am
Great responses and examples.
“Wishing, on the part of Trump’s supporters, makes them vulnerable to being exploited in a variety of ways.”
Our problem is in determining whether his success is due to deficiencies in the education of the general population or deficiencies in the intelligence and intellectual capacity of his followers and supporters.
Keeping in mind that while we can address ignorance, we can’t fix stupid
05/04/2021 @ 7:20 am
Right. Well, we are faced with an extraordinary circumstance, what is the cause? Is it especially difficult to grasp, or are the conclusions simply a matter of choice?
After great advances in thought, and evidence of great intellect, and the maintenance of advances in civilization, the western world went into a dark age. Was that a sudden loss of ability, or a series of choices? I think it is quite clear that the darkness of intellect of the Middle Ages came from choosing cults, which functioned as power systems, over free thought which challenged them. Belief can be exploited to hold on to power, while facts are objective, and are available to all. Facts and reason are small “d” democratic. I don’t think we as a population are any more stupid than we were. I do think we are more self absorbed, and vulnerable to solipsistic ways of thought.
The Trump cult attempts to rest of foundations which do not pass the real world test. They have to use constant self deception to do so. It can take a very long time for that to pass, but they do eventually pass. Supply side theory seemed like it was here to stay. It was fundamental to almost four decades of policy. It had Democrats like Bill Clinton saying things like “the era of big government are over.” Now, that era is over. It didn’t pass real world tests. Fifteen years ago or so, I recall advocating for certain policy issues. Others claimed it would cause massive inflation, as supply side theory had predicted. That never happened. Even the notion of deficit spending is now changing because the real world test is providing evidence that the previous theory was wrong.
I dont mean this to be too optimistic. We could still lose democracy in the space of a single election cycle. I just don’t think it will come as a result of a lack of intellectual capacity. It think it will be a choice.
05/04/2021 @ 9:43 am
Not too optimistic at all. In fact, if the ‘choice’ is an autocratic form of government predicated on White Supremacy and White Nationalism over a multiracial, multicultural democracy there’s nothing to be optimistic about.
And, if that be the case, then heaven help us all!
05/04/2021 @ 10:25 am
Part of the problem is the lack of certain forms of opposition to cultism. One form is opposition at all, meaning scrutinizing certain things presented as truth and not accepting them, “truths” such as there is a choice between economic success and social justice when in actuality it’s both or neither. Another is what in the Washington Post article linked to above refers to as the “memory hole,” the allowing of offenses to be forgotten quickly, which is really how Trump was elected in the first place, by making sure whatever he did only lasted a news cycle. That’s a media responsibility, and apparently a public radio station in Harrisburg has refused to allow that on their air.
05/04/2021 @ 10:58 am
There’s definitely a problem with America’s Fourth Estate.
So called journalists are missing the point and the purpose of their calling all over the place.
A topic for another/separate post.
However, we can start the discussion with this:
According to the Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level statistical data:
“New York Times articles have a tenth-grade reading level…”
https://www.fullmedia.com/how-do-you-measure-readability#:~:text=The%20Flesch%2DKincaid%20Grade%20Level,Ease%20of%2060%20to%2070.
The Times along with other news operations and outlets in New York created the mystique of Donald Trump and then fed him to the masses as though he and his ‘exploits’ were some kind of pulp fiction.
They swallowed it hook line and sinker to the point where the weakminded Trump ended up believing the ‘hype’ himself.
Then in 2016, Speaking at a Morgan Stanley conference in February, then CBS Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves said of Donald Trump’s presidential run: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.”
https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/cbs-ceo-les-moonves-clarifies-donald-trump-good-for-cbs-comment-229996
When Moonves made the statement, that he later tried to characterize as a joke, no one in a leadership position in the Republican Party establishment, including the field of primary candidates, wanted to see Trump win the party’s nomination much less the Presidency.
We’ve been mired in the clear and present danger of Trumpenstein bullshit which has been an existential internal threat to this country and the democracy ever since.
05/04/2021 @ 2:16 pm
I don’t think anyone in the press entertained the real possibility that Trump might actually get elected in 2016. I think they found him a profitable sideshow. And once he started manipulating them they didn’t know how to handle the fact that they were just normally keeping up with news cycles but their audience was forgetting offenses from previous cycles. They hadn’t had a guy like this before who just kept piling up offenses that would have derailed anyone else individually. Compare Trump in 2016 to Al Franken. And remember how unseriously he was taken, like for example by Obama at the National Press Club dinner.
05/04/2021 @ 3:59 pm
“I don’t think anyone in the press entertained the real possibility that Trump might actually get elected in 2016. I think they found him a profitable sideshow.”
Not valid reasons to keep giving him passes while touting his unethical and illegal financial, social, and sexual lifestyle and exploits.
Franken acknowledged his errors and did what he thought was honorable.
Trump couldn’t imagine himself as being wrong about anything and the press accepted that attitude as “Trump being Trump”.
The press would have excoriated and crucified Obama for ANY of the misbehavior Trump was allowed to walk on.
We’d still be waiting for the first black President if Obama wasn’t so squeaky clean.
Re the Press Club Dinner:
In my view, that’s the night Trump became determined to run for the Presidency as an act of revenge against Obama.
05/04/2021 @ 10:13 pm
I agree about the Press Club dinner.
They would have excoriated Obama or Hillary for that stuff because the press took them seriously.
05/05/2021 @ 4:02 pm
I saw this today. I thought you’d appreciate it.
“Abraham Lincoln once asked.
“If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does it have?”
and then answered: “Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.”
Truth is truth. The Former Guy can call himself President all day. He’s not.”