Thursday Thoughts: Clarifying (I Hope) My Position

 

I recently underwent a controversy with a loved one over Facebook, pursued through Messenger (privately) though it began as a published meme. I cannot seem to let it go until I explain (somewhere) my thoughts. He meant it as a cute kind of a joke; I saw it as the subversion of a popular culture children’s icon in service of an ideology that the icon did not (in its officially released work) support. It was accompanied by a collage not only of actual images from the icon’s career, but Rule 34 generated sexual images. It did not seem to be just a joke to me; it subtly promoted, even propagandized for, a damaging point of view. The debate soon evolved into what we meant by facts and what we meant by science.

 [Innocent Smith is on trial for shooting at Dr. Warner. Dr. Pym has declared Innocent to be a ‘destructive type’, doomed by nature to a path of ruin; in answer, Michael Moon declares Dr. Warner to be a ‘destructible type’ doomed by his character to be ever assaulted.] “Dr. Pym was indeed on his feet, looking pallid and rather vicious. “I have strictly CON-fined myself,” he said nasally, “to books to which immediate reference can be made. I have Sonnenschein’s ‘Destructive Type’ here on the table, if the defence wish to see it. Where is this wonderful work on Destructability Mr. Moon is talking about? Does it exist? Can he produce it?”

“Produce it!” cried the Irishman with a rich scorn. “I’ll produce it in a week if you’ll pay for the ink and paper.”

“Would it have much authority?” asked Pym, sitting down.

“Oh, authority!” said Moon lightly; “that depends on a fellow’s religion.” – Manalive, G. K. Chesterton.

In other words, yes, facts are facts, but interpretation of facts lie within the characters and aims of the interpreters [a fellow’s ‘religion’]. An argument that, of course, cuts both ways. But it does not allow either side to claim its interpretation of a fact is itself a fact.

“Facts," murmured Basil, like one mentioning some strange, far-off animals, "how facts obscure the truth.  […] Every detail points to something, certainly; but generally to the wrong thing. Facts point in all directions, it seems to me, like the thousands of twigs on a tree. It's only the life of the tree that has unity and goes up—only the green blood that springs, like a fountain, at the stars.” – The Club of Queer Trades, G. K. Chesterton

He made an appeal to the ‘science,’ linking article after article, and described what I would describe as an ‘interpretation of facts’ as ‘the facts’. Science admits that it is an ever-evolving process and different scientists may disagree about these interpretations and the one that works best is usually accepted but may change in time; medicine itself is as much an art and a philosophy as it is a science (you may well be able to do something but is it the right thing to do?). Feelings are at most a datum and cannot be appealed to as an argument; they are changeable, nebulous, and anecdotal, and may be affected or formed by many factors, including mere selfishness. And even if 99 out of 100 had these feelings, it might make something legally and socially acceptable but not correct. Not a truth-affirming ‘fact’, as such. He is making as much of a philosophical argument as I am, though he has not acknowledged it as such.

We left things at a truce and not a triumph for either. We both continue to think we are right. He believes his position is kinder because it promotes a point of view that makes some people happier; I believe mine is kinder, if sterner, in that it does not indulge in emotional fantasies leading to physical damage. Ironically, he might possibly make the same accusation levelled at my religious beliefs. And then we’d have a whole other philosophical argument to unpack.

And who needs that at Christmas?