We see in the climate debate – and also recently in the corona debate – that the common factual basis no longer exists. This raises the question of whether it ever really existed and what we mean when we talk about “facts”.
If I see that the sun is shining, that is (for me) an indisputable fact. But let’s take global warming. Science says that the air temperature near the surface, averaged over the whole earth, has increased at a rate of 0.2°C/decade since 1980 and that this increase is almost entirely due to the greenhouse gases that mankind has blown into the air.
But is that a fact? No one has measured this value and the connection with greenhouse gases themselves, but it has been developed as a co-operative effort by tens of thousands of people. Its credibility depends entirely on the credibility of the scientists and technicians involved. For a few people, including some scientists, even the amount of warming is not a fact: they doubt the measurement and evaluation process. For many more people, warming is a fact, but the link with emissions is not.
This means that what we call “fact” is mostly based on the trustworthiness of the people from whom we have the information. But why do we believe person A and not person B?
Ultimately, this is an intuitive decision that arises from the totality of our experiences, taking into account the opinions and attitudes of our parents, teachers, friends and colleagues, as well as the media we consume. It sounds counterintuitive and a little scary, but we can’t get out of it: What is a fact for an individual is a decision, and an intuitive one at that. And since humanity is made up of individuals, almost our entire factual basis consists of intuitive decisions.
But that does not mean that there is complete arbitrariness. Intuition is not arbitrary. We depend on developing accurate predictions from information for our survival and happiness, and there are a number of heuristics that help us assess the value of information:
- Coherence and consistency: the information and explanations should be internally consistent and fit with the background information that I have already classified as “true”. Science is a system to bring a huge amount of information and explanations into a coherent and consistent system. But beware: a conspiracy theory is also coherent and consistent in itself! It fits perfectly with the (regrettably little and often false) information available to its proponents.
- Information about the messenger: does he have the mental capacity, knowledge and experience to distinguish between true and false statements? Has he said false things in the past? Are there any known conflicts of interest that could lead them to make false statements? Do they have due diligence and self-examination, i.e. a certain distance to their own findings and a willingness to change them if necessary? If someone is a recognised expert in the field in question, this is a good prerequisite – albeit not a complete certainty. E.g. Scientists who make statements about fields other than their own are often badly off the mark.
- Reinforced by confirmation from other people. For our nervous system, information that has been conveyed once is little more than a suggestion. Only its repetition, preferably in other contexts, reinforces it and turns it into a “real” internal object. But beware: among conspiracy theorists there are multiple confirmations of idiotic statements. Propaganda – which also exists in democracies through certain media organisations – succeeds in reinforcing questionable information and associations through repetition until they become realities for their audience. Other people’s opinions can even lead us to question our own judgement and invent ad hoc theories as to why our judgement might be wrong (gaslighting).
This also touches on the question of whether there is democracy in facts, i.e. whether what the majority says is fact. We can use the above to identify this as an inappropriate question. A better one is: Is it a sensible decision to accept, what the majority says, as fact? The answer is: it depends on how much trust I place in the abilities and intentions of this majority.
To summarise: What we call facts is based on subjective, intuitive decisions about probabilities that we ascribe, more precisely decisions about whom we credit credibility. These judgements are influenced by traditions, heuristics and emotions and can also turn out to be wrong. Though at the moment we make them, they are the best we have. It therefore makes sense to stand by them and make them the basis of our actions – but without closing ourselves off to corrections.
Translated courtesy deepl.com from my German blog.
Remarks and Observations 