Okay, I admit the title was intended to be a bit provocative but stay with me on this. Anyone who knows me also knows I hate attempts to win arguments in 30 second sound bites, particularly in the realm of politics and faith. This includes facebook and twitter posts where people seem to think they are shutting up those opposed to their viewpoint.
All these opinions are usually veiled behind the claim that their opinions are based on facts and therefore no intelligent person could disagree. Well, I'm here to state emphatically that facts do not win arguments. Lest you think me mad, let me explain.
First off, facts don't generally come from unbiased sources. For instance, many scientists may see factual results from their observation, but their research is based on a working theory and that can lead them in how they decipher data and ultimately their conclusions. Yes, they have employed the scientific method but often abandon it once they believe their findings are complete or even support their initial theory. It is no different for anything else. When we see through a particular color of lens, it will often shade our conclusions. Simply put, our human nature can often incline us to go search out facts to support what we already believe which is opinion directing truth and not truth directing belief.
Well documented facts can be granules of truth but individually or even in small amounts are not enough to dictate a cognitive conclusion for complex issues. What we see today is the use of micro-facts to try to silence opposing beliefs and that tends to negate higher standards of reason, logic and historical context.
Allow me to give an over-simplified example. When Ohio Governor John Kasich came to office in 2011, he was portrayed as a hypocrite because he proposed cutting spending while giving sizable raises to some of his key staff positions. It was indeed factual that he did give raises to some in comparison to former Governor Strickland's staff but is this enough to make the case of hypocrisy? Additional facts in this matter were that he had a smaller staff and that actually cost the state $390,000 less in annual compensation than the prior administration. I'm not making a case for either side but rather to illustrate that a few technical facts don't prove a position either way. The point is that a few factual details are rarely enough to formulate a cohesive and supportable stand on a particular topic or issue.
Now, let me come full circle and say that facts are important. Our beliefs and opinions should have a plethora of factual information to support them however they should be roadsigns directing us along our journey to our beliefs and not stones to throw at passers-by. A multitude of facts is good if it can aid in formulating a trend but only when viewed from a larger vantage point and governed by reason, logic, history and even experience.
We will not persuade anyone to our way of thinking in a half hour nor will throwing simple facts in the ring over and over cease all disagreement. A person's stand on any issue is usually adopted after years regardless if it was well supported or not.
