Yeah, we've all been to that part of Youtube.
When we get to having conversations, debates, and arguments, its easy to get caught up in the moment. If I had a dollar for every time it happened to me, I could probably start my own Super PAC and circumvent the hell out of some campaign contribution laws. In this post, I want to talk about the importance of discerning fact versus opinion in a political debate, because there are important distinctions to be made between the two and their place in political discourse.
An opinion comes down to one's own values or tastes. A fact statement is a claim that is verifiable through empirical evidence. Seems simple, right? And yet we still have a debate about climate change when there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and is due to human activities. Even the most stringent statistician will tell you that 95% is statistically significant, and scientists have a 97% consensus. Its pretty cut and dry, but there is still an insistence on arguing fact as if it is opinion.
Of course, climate change is an easy example because anyone who is at all scientifically literate knows that it is occurring. But what about other issues? Issues that are based on opinion, but the dialogue around them involve factual claims that are also treated like opinions? That occurs a lot too, and I am going to discuss those using the issue of undocumented immigrants in the United States.
Exhibit A
Now, when it comes to your beliefs about what to do with undocumented immigrants, that is an opinion. If you believe that every single undocumented immigrant in the United States should be deported, then I can call that opinion awful, but I can't call it wrong. It is your opinion about what should happen, and there is just no arguing about that as it were a fact. Its a value judgment derived from your own world view.
However, everyone also has their own reasoning backing up their opinions, and this is where facts come into play. Fact statements come into play all the time in dialogue about subjective political statements, but the problem is they are often looked at as also being subjective. When this happens, discourse that could have otherwise been productive becomes a convoluted mess.
Going back to the example at hand, immigration, lets reiterate that your opinion on the matter is a subjective value judgment. But the claim that "they don't pay taxes"? That is a falsifiable claim- that is, it can be proven to be true or false. And the fact of the matter is, that statement is completely false. The numbers have been crunched, and it has been empirically proven that undocumented immigrants pay taxes. It also doesn't take too much to figure this out, either- I don't think this conversation has ever taken place, anywhere:
Customer: Alright, I'm ready to checkout.
Clerk: Cool. Whats your immigration status?
Customer: Excuse me?
Clerk: Well, if you are undocumented... no sales taxes, brah!
Customer: Aw yeah!
And that isn't the only statement that can be verified in this debate. The claim that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than people with citizenship or permanent residency status? Verifiable and false. The claim that undocumented immigrants are economic leeches that use a bunch of our public assistance social services? Verifiable and false. The claim that they're stealing jobs other US citizens would be doing instead? Verifiable and false.
So yes, anyone can think what they want about something when that opinion comes from their values. You may think the reason undocumented immigrants don't deserve rights is because they "broke the rules", and while I would have a lot to say to that line of reasoning, the point is that it is an opinion. It is based off a fact (they broke the rules) but the subsequent belief you derive from that is an opinion. Its your belief about what should happen. But the second you start bringing out arguments to back up your opinion, ask yourself: is this a verifiable claim? If so, do I have evidence for this? What kind of evidence do I have?
So next time you're in a conversation about politics, or even just watching one on TV, try to think about which statements are value statements and which are factual claims. If we make an effort to understand these distinctions, then we can hopefully improve the quality of our political discourse. And with improved political discourse, we could finally focus on what truly matters: building giant robots to rocket punch monsters in the face.
Two words: "fuck!" and "YES!!!"
No comments:
Post a Comment