just the 'facts'

.
As a newspaper reporter, it took me several years to recognize that facts are less important than beliefs. However galling that recognition was -- and since I imagined I was a fact-gatherer, it could be pretty galling -- still it was an unassailable fact: Beliefs, not facts, were the important part. And if this was true, then it was up to me to make my peace with it ... gather the facts, but not expect facts to have a decisive impact on decisions.

I hated it.

Once, when I was still under the impression that facts would conclusively end a debate, I got permission to create two fact-boxes that would run side by side in the newspaper. The topic was schools-related ... I don't really remember ... maybe the creation of a new school, maybe the demolition of an old one: Whatever it was, it was a hot-button topic and I was sick of reporting on it. So I created the two fact boxes. Each was filled with bulleted items ... just the facts ... either pro or con.

When the fact boxes were published, the superintendent of schools called me up and said it was the most useful information yet published on the topic. And for about 30 minutes, I thought I had done something good and righteous and conclusively true. And then the reactions began to pour in and it was clear that facts did NOT end the debate. It just meant that beliefs, whether pro or con, slipped into new configurations of continued debate.

 How hard people may work on the topics that interest them. Warfare or spirituality, the close study can require an enormous effort. And from that effort, that close examination, those endless hours of research, can arise a quite simply stated conclusion. "War sucks" or "war is the only choice." "Enlightenment is worth the effort" or "enlightenment is nothing more than a warm bucket of spit."

So much effort. So many hours. So many facts placed cheek by jowl and assessed and assimilated and ... what a lot of effort ... and then ... and then ... nobody gives a shit. Or, if they do give a shit, they color the matter in as they see fit, according to their capacities or leanings, whether factual or credulous.

Gandhi was credited with saying, "speak truth to power." What a carefully-crafted suggestion. SPEAK truth to power. There is nothing wrong with speaking out of a wealth or dearth of factual information. But the notion A. that it is the truth and B. that that truth will have some expected impact is pretty wasteful, and more, sad-making in its empirical results.

Some will agree. Some will not. But whether they agree in ways that acknowledge the long, hard research that preceded one pronouncement or another is always open to question. And it is in this sense that relying on the agreement of others is a fool's errand. Sometimes I wonder which is more dangerous -- our friends or our enemies.

I just think that keeping an eye on our expectations is a good exercise because setting aside expectations is both more sensible and it makes time for more fruitful research. If you like it, fine. If you don't like it, fine.

Speak truth to power and leave it at that.
.