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?
