Alternative Facts or Alternative World Views?

“The Trump administration and many Republicans are doubling down as the party that denies science and promotes 'alternative facts'. Maybe Democrats will step in as the party of truth, rather than the party of political correctness” (a Facebook friend's post).

I’ve been thinking about that term (alternative facts). It’s easy to mock--especially in the context of how Kellyanne Conway used it recently--as Orwellian. 

But if you think about it, most of us tend to rely on the facts that best suit our worldview. Some people call this confirmation bias, and maybe that’s what it is. Take, for instance, the climate debate. A person whose main concern has to do with the environment will quite naturally be convinced by the science that proves or disproves some aspect of this issue. Another person is more concerned about the economy. So the research he is most influenced by has to do with the impact any proposed solutions generated by the climate debate will have on the economy. In other words, what are the ultimate consequences of these actions from a utilitarian point of view? Which would result in the greater good, or the greater good to the most people? We can argue about long term vs. short term good, but to dismiss his response as anti-science or to denigrate the facts he relies on as bogus simply because they’re focusing on a different aspect of the argument is to set up roadblocks to discussion, compromise, and solution. 

This goes both ways. A person who opposes abortion because he believes the unborn fetus is fully human believes this based on evidence--ultrasound images, advances in fetal research, prenatal surgery, developmental biology. To this person, these facts outweigh the “alternative facts” from the pro-choice side. Both sides rely on facts that support their worldview, and both sides’ facts may be correct in terms of supporting or proving their argument. Unless the facts they use are bogus, or skewed, or unreliable, or dated, or whatever, neither side should denigrate the other side as anti-science (which is the implication of the term “alternative”). 

I think what I’m trying to say here is we need to stop putting up barriers to discussion by dismissing the other side (usually the Republican) as “anti-science.” This is particularly true in the climate debate. Recently, a climate-related story made major headlines, even “alarming” headlines (see images below) about 2016 supposedly being hottest year on record. 

Yet I appreciated the perspective of the Wall Street Journal editors in their  January 19 editorial on the subject (linked below), particularly their concluding remarks. To examine the evidence of a claim, to put it into perspective, to discuss whether or even if proposed solutions will do more harm than good, is not to deny science but to “add to human knowledge on climate,” as the editors put it in their final paragraph: 

"But adding to human knowledge on climate requires a thorough airing and debate over the evidence. That won't happen as long as alarmists continue to try to shut down debate by spinning doomsday tales about sizzling temperatures."

Keeping Cool About Hot Temperatures (Wall Street Journal editorial, January 19, 2017).