Individual freedoms

It would seem that some people confuse a “world view” with something that is commonly referred to as “knowledge.” If I suggest that two people are arguing when in fact they are not, then I am at the very least lying about them. If I similarly suggest that there is a debate about an issue in a field that I know nothing about, I may be voicing my opinion, but I am also exposing my lack of knowledge or understanding in that subject. Better that I should keep my mouth closed and be thought a fool.

We seem to live in a time where scientifically accepted facts are misunderstood to be opinions and therefore open to debate. As humans, we are susceptible to a tendency to accept an opinion as a fact if it is repeated to us often enough, especially if the person doing the repeating is in a strong position of authority. However, we must not lose sight of the “fact” that sometimes opinions are just, well, opinions. In fact, sometimes the suggestion that there are two sides to a story can be its own fallacy. It can also be in someone’s best interest to repeat that lie often enough that it becomes commonly held as a fact. Ultimately, though, that is the question: Is something a “fact” because we “hold” it to be true or because it stands up to rigorous and objective testing and observation?

I do not deny that our understanding of “facts” changes. However, the fact that our understanding changes is merely evidence that our tests have become more rigorous. So, just as an example, the world is not flat. Eratosthenes knew that in 250 BCE. You do have the freedom to believe otherwise, but “to present (it) as if there are two sides to a debate when there substantially is not becomes problematic.”

Peter Lehman Waterloo