Distinguishing fact from opinion: a critical skill as the election approaches

As we close in on election day, President Trump touts his "plan" to defeat COVID-19.  Sounds like a fact, doesn't it?  Meanwhile, Joe Biden says Trump doesn't have the requisite leadership skills to govern.  Sounds like an opinion, doesn't it?  

Distinguishing fact from opinion is a critical skill not only in choosing a candidate but also in finding our way through life in general.  Professor Justin McBrayer thinks so anyway.  I received an email from the good professor yesterday, reminding me of a dialog we had a few years ago.  McBrayer wrote a piece in the New York Times about how his second-grader was being subjected to flawed reasoning on the matter.  I responded with a blog post that I shared with him.

My post which is printed in full below doesn't rise to the level of McBrayer's new book, Beyond Fake News: Finding the Truth in a World of Misinformation.  You can find out more about the book on his website here or in a five-minute video clip here.  The book is available at places like Amazon and Barnes and Noble, but you can also use the author discount code FLR40 on the publisher’s site to bring the paperback price down to $27.96.

How to tell right from wrong... It ain't easy!

Do your kids think there are “moral facts”?  Are there circumstances where it is okay to lie, cheat or steal?

Philosopher and college professor Justin McBrayer concerns himself with such questions and was upset enough about what his second grader is being taught in school to air his opinion in the NY Times.  He discovered that the common core curriculum, by its definitions of fact vs. opinion, teaches our children that values (or value claims as he describes them) are not facts.  They are opinions.  

Connecting the lessons his son is being taught in the second grade to cheating on college campuses, he observes “that the overwhelming majority of college freshmen in their classrooms view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture.”

I sent the article to my brother who is a bit closer to this issue than I.  He has worked on education issues with Georgia’s state government and his wife spent her career teaching grammar school.  He expressed amazement that “parents of grade school children extend small things into the cause of the world’s problems.”

He’s probably right.  But, there was something about Professor McBrayer’s argument that stuck in my head.  Then, it came to me. What’s missing in his essay is any mention of a social contract, an implicit agreement among members of society who embrace a common set of values. “All Men Are Created Equal”, for example, is part of a value system that forms the basis of a social contract.  In a literal sense, it is not a fact. Some people are created smarter or stronger or prettier.  However, the statement — which is really meant to convey “All Men Have Equal Rights” — drives legislation and government enforcement of equal opportunity laws.  That is part of the social contract that we accept prima facie.

I agree with Professor McBrayer that it’s appropriate to separate mere opinions from value statements.  "Copying homework assignments is wrong" is a statement of our values and a good lesson to teach our children.

However, children’s values are learned more in their activities and day-to-day experiences than in classrooms.  Kid’s taught to play golf are charged with scoring and adhering to the rules.  There are valuable lessons in this activity that have nothing to do with fact vs. opinion.  They have to do with personal responsibility and how we treat others.  It’s a social contract of a sort.  

Another example of how children learn comes from comparing parents’ behavior to what they say.  You can tell your kid that it’s wrong to lie.  But, they learn that lying is part of the fabric of society.  If Mom tells someone how nice he or she looks and then tells Dad how awful that person looks, the kid learns that - at least in that situation - it’s okay to lie.  Ultimately, they figure out that an overwhelming number of people cheat on their taxes or steal office supplies from their employers. 

Teaching kids not to lie, cheat or steal is important.  And, Professor McBrayer is right when he says, “consistency demands that we acknowledge the existence of moral facts.”

However, in a world where the social contract is constantly evolving, distinguishing fact from opinion is an important skill. People’s values go well beyond clear rules about what is right and what is wrong and our perspective is constantly changing. Witness the change in people’s attitudes about gay marriage, for example.  

Moreover, I contend that many “moral claims” are relative to culture.   In a complex global community, moral relativism is required to address society’s larger issues.  

In politics… How much should we tax the rich to provide for the poor?

In medicine… Should we administer an experimental drug to a critically ill patient?

In business… Are we treating our customers ethically?

In foreign affairs… When should we send troops to defend another nation?

In a post a few years ago (From Deadly Sin to Virtue), I quoted Barry Schwartz, a Swarthmore professor and co-author of “Practical Wisdom:  the Right Way to Do the Right Thing”.  He compares finding what’s right to jazz improvisation.  The notes are on the page but the musicians play a variation that results in beautiful music. 

In American society, our response to people and institutions that are unprincipled is to create rules to govern their behavior.  But, that doesn’t work.  What we need, Schwartz asserts, is the moralwill to do the right thing and the skill to figure out what that is. 

Let’s figure out how to teach that lesson to our children.

WHO WILL LEAD? 

The case for a third-party vote

So far, each of the two major party candidates for president reflect the opposite sides of the culture war.  As an independent voter (I haven’t voted for the winner in a presidential contest in 24 years), my frustration with the major parties continues.  Our choice seems to be limited to the lesser of two evils.

 

I consider myself to be a right leaning moderate and would normally hold my nose and vote Republican.  But, if you believe as I do, that character matters, that leadership matters, that Trump’s failures during the pandemic and our racial strife are disqualifiers, it’s easy to declare yourself a never Trump-er.  On the other hand, I can’t say he hasn’t accomplished anything of value.  He has lowered taxes, reduced business regulation, confronted China, facilitated an historic peace agreement in the Middle East and begun to rebuild the military, all which appeal to this former Republican and much of which his opponent would reverse.   

 

Of course, anyone who believes all those achievements are positive developments would find it difficult to vote for a Democrat — any Democrat.  That difficulty is compounded by the casual way in which leading Democrats would toss our prosperity aside in pursuit of higher taxes, more mandates on businesses, expanded entitlements and government “investment” in green technology.  If you think Biden would govern as a moderate, check out the progressive wish list that forms his official platform.  

 

I am not alone in my view of the candidates.  Recently, the Gallup organization found that 37% of Americans think neither major party candidate would be a good president, the highest such percentage since the pollster started asking that question.  And, yet, an analysis by the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics concludes in part, “[t]hird party candidates typically poll better than they perform.”  Perhaps that’s because many people believe, as one Democrat friend put it, a vote for a third-party candidate “is a vote for Trump.”  Or, perhaps it’s because disaffected voters who don’t live in swing states realize that no matter how we cast our ballots, our vote will go to the majority winner in our state – Biden here in deep blue New York.  So, we stay home. 

 

I vote third party because it helps me sleep at night to vote for something I believe in rather than the lesser of two evils.  So, on November 3^rd, I’ll cast my vote for the only woman running for president this year – Jo Jorgenson of the Libertarian Party (and for Kevin Wilson for Congress in NY-25).  If you think that’s a wasted vote, I would ask you to consider how the major parties would react if the 37% of us who disapprove of both Biden and Trump voted for someone else. 

 

WHO WILL LEAD?