Facts

Should the New York Times fact-check ? Can North Carolina outlaw scientific predictions on how much the sea level will rise in the coming years ?

These are just two illustrations of the phenomenon that people no longer understand the difference between fact and opinion, between truth and social construct, between results and presentation. It is clear that a lack of proper education is to blame.

If we concentrate for a while on the written media, for instance, then we see that journalists quickly write their required number of words on the topic of the reader's choice, without being bogged down by too much background knowledge. Authorative sources are quoted saying 'yes', and other authorative sources are quoted saying 'no'. No attempt whatsoever is made to lay bare the correct statement. These articles are then branded as good objective journalism, representing the various facets of the problem at hand. It's like arguing that a child must be free to choose between evolutionism and creationism, and must be made aware of both.

This type of argument is not only repeated ad nauseam, but also implicitly and much more subtely and generally applied in the serious media. It is mindboggling how many panels consist of one person that knows what she is talking about and five others that have an opinion on the matter that is based on what they thought up while attempting to boil a soft-boiled egg for the correct amount of time, and failing.

The analytic mindset is hardly defended anymore. Analysis is considered boring, both in the media and at cocktail parties. When somebody voices an opinion, and somebody else asks what it is based on, it will be the second person who will be considered slow and annoying. Yet, it is the multitude of unfounded opinions which is disquieting, and it is those who voice them who are wasting our time.