Fact v Theory

Sometimes the line between fact and theory becomes obfuscated, blurred beyond recognition so that, indeed, theory becomes fact. And, how dangerous is that?

Who, but an absolute imbecile deserving of immediate dismissal, ridicule, and ostracism, would argue against "fact?" Of course, what is fact? Is man-made global warming a fact? Is even "global warming" a fact? Well, according to some people it/they are. My own US Senator, in a reply to an e-mail I sent her, dismissed my concerns with our gov't's rash reactions to "global warming" with "the facts are settled." And, as any first semester logic student knows, they are not. Theory is not fact.

The Depression was a catastrophe for the overwhelming majority of people. It devastated the lives of tens of millions of Americans. Those are facts. The New Deal was FDR's attempt to end the Depression. And, the Depression did end. Those, too, are facts. Now, that FDR's New Deal ended the Depression or even eased it are not facts, but theories. I, then, remain amazed that when I present this is class students resort to "the New Deal ended the Depression." Somebody somewhere, a lot of somebodies in a lot of somewheres, must be teaching this. I know most textbooks hold this to be "a fact." And, since it is a "fact," to argue against it is, well, see above.

That I can present facts and figures that suggest the Depression wasn't ended by the New Deal, that, in fact, it may well have prolonged it, is not accepted by most of my students. (Note the answers on their essays!) I don't say, in class, that it did or didn't. I merely indicate that it isn't at all clear that the New Deal had a positive effect on the New Deal devastation. (Of course, I personally believe it didn't help much if at all, economically, and that, in other areas, was very deleterious, the evils we are experiencing to this day.)

The same goes for the Versailles Treaty and the standard "fact" that it led to the rise of Hitler, to the Second World War, etc. Those are theories, again, held by most textbooks, historians, etc. For me to present them as theories, not facts, is often met with skepticism by students (well, the handful who remember their other history classes in high school and college or who watch the History Channels) who have been told otherwise. That I present facts and figures to buttress my contention (a theory, not a fact) does little to persuade them.

The danger in this is obvious. Politically, well, note the "man-made global warming" argument. How many billions of dollars are invested (wasted?) in countering this "fact?" And, until recently with the discovery of the fraud among scientists, this is exactly what happened. What are the global warming alarmists doing to counteract the discovery of fraud? Yep, falling back on the "fact" of global warming. How many other instances/examples can we find of this? In the schools, try arguing against the latest folly being perpetrated as fact. In fact, most of these follies aren't just theories, but stupid theories. But to argue that isn't arguing against stupid theories, but against fact. That, certainly, leads to dismissal, riducule, and ostracism. What narrow, narrow minds! We find this even in some of our most prestigious universities. (U of M, are you listening? Of course not.)

Hence, the argument for a strong, rigorous, quality education--not the type most teachers have today. But, that's a dead horse I've been beating for decades and nobody believes my "theory."

See this in practice with the "health care debate," how much better the socialized medicine of European nations is than ours. Don't argue otherwise; that's a known fact. Even if you uncover the fallacy of this fact, you don't get anywhere. Who in his right mind can argue that Cuban medicine/health care isn't far superior than ours? After all, Michael Moore made a movie all about it! Speaking of "right minds," what American would opt to hop on a plane bound for Havana for treatment instead of even the hospital right down the road? I rest my case.... Where else do you want to go? Cap and tax? Raising taxes to increase gov't revenues and fix the economy? The list is endless.

Where is our vaunted college education? Why don't we see through such illogic? As I think I finally figured out, today's colleges (the majority of them, at least) are now doing the jobs that previous generations' junior highs and high schools did. That is, a college degree (the work required, the lessons and information learned) of today is the equivalent of a high school diploma of 30-40 years ago.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it!