You get to choose what you care about, but you don't get to chose whether it is right to to care about it. You are free to have whatever opinion you want, but you don't get to choose whether those opinions are correct. This matters practically because the "tribunal of facts" stabilizes collective action: when responsive to it, people can count on certain strategies to solve problems. If you cease to care about what is fact, your strategies will inevitably get out of step with everyone else's. This is only sustainable until the facts force themselves on you.

Constraining your freedom doesn't mean you cease to be free, but it allows others to flourish just as you do. A free society ("a free people", as you say) should allow everyone to flourish as much as they care to (but no less). Collective freedom is not just the sum of individual freedoms. It is the result of cooperation.

> You are free to have whatever opinion you want, but you don't get to choose whether those opinions are correct.

What kind of nonsense is that? My OPINION is that Snowden is a hero, and NOT a traitor, and I absolutely choose to consider that opinion is correct. What are the FACTS about that? He broke the law. But he broke an immoral law? What about the actions he divulged? Were they not unconstitutional? Of course, there are "laws" on the books that make what the CIA/NSA did "legal." So where does all this leave us?

Forums like this keep discussion fake news in the light of "fact," as though fact were enough. It's not. You can go back and forth and back and forth with arguments about Snowden, and get nowhere. It all depends on your bias about how the Constitution should regard your personal liberty and privacy versus the concern for national safety. Lots of people fall on both sides. I use this example because it's a good, clear one, but the same thing is going on in most other stories. There's at least 2 ways of looking at everything. A person's bias and moral compass determines which way is the one they choose to care about. And who are you to tell them that their opinion -- based on the same set of data -- is "wrong?" That's just called having a difference of opinion.

Now that the country is well and truly removed from the halcyon post-war era, we have to figure out how to live with each other, and differences of opinion. That's the real issue here. The same way that social norms had to react and catch up with the emergence of Facebook itself, we have to settle into new norms about living with people who don't think like we do, and that goes for both sides.

It's not going to stop me from thinking that someone is "wrong" when they call Snowden a traitor, but it doesn't mean I need to get in their face about it, or put signs in their yard, or tear down their signs, or picket their business. You see what I'm saying.

Sure, but at the end of it, your opinion that Snowden is a hero or not is either grounded in fact or not. As you point out, "hero" as a concept is sensitive to perspectival factors, but it is possible to make those explicit, no? (likewise, If I feel cold, then that is a fact, despite it being inescapably subjective). The issue is, then, why are we inclined to assert that he is (or not) a hero "simpliciter", when the truth is more complicated than that? We might not be entitled to claim as much as we want.

> A person's bias and moral compass determines which way is the one they choose to care about. And who are you to tell them that their opinion -- based on the same set of data -- is "wrong?" That's just called having a difference of opinion.

Somebody's moral compass is not just an irreducibly subjective element, but it is also normatively sensitive to facts. Our weighting of the data might have biases, but those biases are surely appropriate or not as well? (I don't mean to imply that we can resolve in principle the issue of whether our biases are correct or not, which we might not; see the problem of Deep Disagreement [1])

So yes, I agree with you when you say that the problem is how to live with each other given our limitations to resolve disagreements. However, I think underplaying the role of facts in this needlessly perpetuates them. The sort of disagreements we face is not just of the kind you just gave an example of: people disagree in ways in which they don't even agree on the same set of data. See the case of climate change denial, for example. Those are not simply having a "difference of opinion".

[1]: https://www.academia.edu/2592706/What_is_the_Problem_of_Deep...

You seem to be conflating facts and opinions. You correctly point out that people disagree on facts, but you don't seem to accept that even when people do agree on facts they can still disagree on opinion. I find this position dangerous, as it rapidly leads to the idea that, if everyone were equally in agreement of the facts, clearly they would all come to the same conclusions based on those facts. You have to draw a line between opinion and facts somewhere: choose a place, draw the line, and then assert your opponent is calling a fact an opinion; but as soon as you start redefining words like "opinion" to be something people don't get to choose the correctness of... well, it isn't just my "opinion" that you are now becoming part of the problem, I would argue it is a "fact" (insofar as words have definitions, which I would often argue against in the small, but definitely can't challenge in the large).

No, that is not what I'm claiming. I'm arguing for a normative claim: when people agree on the facts, they should not disagree on opinion. It is obvious that as a matter of fact, they can disagree / but this 'can' is that of a matter of fact possibility, not one of 'absolute allowance'. People can come to believe their opinions are correct, but that doesn't make them so. We can, as a matter of fact, live with the fact that our opinions are not absolutely allowed, but I don't think that makes our holding those opinions right in a strict sense.

> No, that is not what I'm claiming. I'm arguing for a normative claim: when people agree on the facts, they should not disagree on opinion.

I'm confused, isn't that exactly what the parent's argument is though? You said that's not what you're saying, and then repeat the exact same thing, contradicting yourself.

Personally I disagree with you, if I'm understanding correctly. To me, a huge chunk of the population, you included it would seem, believes that some things are no longer a matter of opinion, that 10 and 20 years ago everyone would have happily agreed are matters of opinion rather than matters of fact.

I hope to clear this up.

If I understood him correctly, he's saying that I was claiming that if we agreed on facts (if facts were settled, as it were), we would agree in opinions, which is clearly false as a matter of fact. My claim is that we should agree in opinions, if facts were settled. I think difference between would/should is significant here. I am saying: if facts were settled, and we had a disagreement, at least one of the parties in the disagreement should not hold their opinions (would be wrong). I am not saying: if facts were settled, we could not be in disagreement.

If it was possible in principle to settle the facts, our apparent entitlement to hold certain opinions would be, in a sense, illusory. We can act on the assumption that it is not, for sure, but that doesn't make our entitlement right.

I am not even claiming that facts are settled (that is, that we know what is true as a matter of fact). Since they are not settled, we should be more cautious in our taking of opinions, and of course that goes both ways.

It's a largely philosophical question so not surprising that it's difficult to go about.

At least for me, I am coming from the angle that some things are a matter of fact, and some are a matter of opinion. For example, everyone can be fully informed on economics, but on the matter of "how much should a waiter be paid in New York City", there is no "right" answer.

That might very well be not what the disagreement was about from your perspective though. :/

Yes, I understand that. The issue is that not all disagreements are about what you call "matters of opinion" (and thus faultless [1]). (And even when they are, one can give an approximate answer that filters out a bunch of alternative opinions on the matter: for example, it seems like a waiter in NYC should not be paid less than a certain a amount, let's say, the average it takes for someone in NYC in the person's social strata to pay rent and be able to eat and go to work each day). The issue really comes up when one takes all disagreements to take this form, which is, I think, what this thread was initially about (then the GGP asked why we should care about the facts at all).

[1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4545405

Ah, I wasn't aware there was some formal theories on this idea!

Along the same lines (maybe), I've always thought an improved way to approach disagreement (breaking down "matters of opinion) is to break things down into components to better discover discrete points of contention. When you have a unsolvable dispute, you've either reached a matter of opinion, or, the disputed topic has to be broken down further. I wonder if that's the approach the book takes?

I think this approach could be quite successful, assuming two reasonable people involved (a tall order nowadays perhaps).

There are "facts" which support diametrical points of view, and you brought up the perfect example. You can make data support any theory you want, and you'll get published! And stories will be written about your research! And you'll get a raise! No matter WHAT you say about it.

People look to their ideological pedagogues to TELL them what to think about the NEWS COVERAGE of the ARTICLES about the PAPERS about the DATA, regardless of what it says, and it's happening on BOTH sides, with both the Rush Limbaugh's and the Jon Stewart's of the world. Facts may matter to you and me, but they certainly don't to most of the population. By the time it reaches the average person, an 18-month study, with all it's glorious data, assumptions, conditions, and results, is washed out in a single sound byte, because no one has the patience to understa...

Oh, look! A funny cat video! That's hilarious. Let me just send that on to 1,000 of my followers...

I would like to agree with you, but if you get a large enough group that believes that fiction is truth, that can do a lot of harm to the people who actually do believe in facts.

That's where I (personally) draw the line on everything: do literally whatever the hell you want, as long as you aren't harming anyone else in the process. Obviously there are nuances, and sometimes causing some harm in the pursuit of the greater good is acceptable, but I think this principle is a sound starting point.

And that's the thing. You can be a climate-change denier all you want, but once that starts affecting public policy, that's a problem, because, for example, eviscerating the EPA will have far-reaching, long-term, negative effects on life on our planet.

> You can be a climate-change denier all you want, but once that starts affecting public policy, that's a problem, because, for example, eviscerating the EPA will have far-reaching, long-term, negative effects on life on our planet.

This goes both ways though. I'm far from an expert on the subject, but I've read very compelling arguments from people whose livelihood are significantly affected by EPA regulations that have missed the mark, or are enforced unfairly.

A perfectly legitimate case can be made to modify some EPA regulations, but when that reasonable position is characterized as "eviscerating the EPA", well then we have another problem, because then both sides are not in a compromising mood, and that is what we need to accomplish anything.

> A perfectly legitimate case can be made to modify some EPA regulations, but when that reasonable position is characterized as "eviscerating the EPA", well then we have another problem

Terminating the EPA entirely (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861) is not a "reasonable position".

Walter Kirn made a similar argument[1] which you may enjoy reading in Harper's, but it is a subtle argument. He writes:

> So here’s to the freedom to be led astray, which it would be folly to restrict, lest it foster complacency and tempt the devil. Because that’s what attracts him: foolproof safeguards. Like the one the Clinton campaign erected when, per WikiLeaks, it encouraged the nomination of a laughable, beatable “Pied Piper candidate” named Donald Trump. Or CNN’s belief in its ability to not only report the news but tell us which sources to ignore.

> Assume you’re an imbecile, but, more important, consider that the imbecile across from you may be a genius in disguise. As we go forward, so many of us still secure in our contempt for the vulgar pretender and his sorry partisans, it’s a lesson worth remembering. It might prove helpful, even protective. Plus, it’s true.

It's good that people are free to choose what to read and what to believe, and yet the current state of affairs is cause for concern nonetheless. A coin is "free to choose" whether to come up heads or tails, but if it comes up heads ninety times of a hundred tosses, it's reasonable to assume that the coin has a problem.

Of course, you could always make the argument that nothing is a problem and that this is just the way the world is -- a growing number of people don't care about facts -- and this is what we are now. But all judgements of good vs. bad are ultimately based on a choice of values. Freedom is a value, as is respect for the truth. Believing that while everyone is free, stability requires that only a small portion would choose fiction over fact is a reasonable position.

[1]: http://harpers.org/archive/2017/02/a-grim-fairy-tale/?single...

Great article, thanks. It's a bit comforting to see there are still some reasonable people in the media.

You can, and should, have your own opinions.

Does that extend to facts?

Questioning our assumptions and commonly held beliefs (even facts!) should be encouraged as an integral part of intellectual discourse.

I'm saddened by the current state of affairs where increasingly polarized factions feel that taking nuanced (rather than absolutist) positions threatens their positions and gives up ground to the opposition.

Questioning established beliefs and fact should absolutely be encouraged. But that questioning must be grounded in a good-faith, logical, reasonable belief that contrary evidence exists. When mountains of evidence are provided that support existing facts, and you are unable to come up with any persuasive evidence or avenues of research to contradict those facts, you are an idiot and have no place influencing or making public policy.

And what about the cases where there isn't a mountain of evidence supporting one side or the other?

At least from my observation, the general stance of most people is 100% complete belief in any partisan theory, and complete rejection of any opposing ideas, regardless of the amount of evidence supporting each.

Well, duh, then there's more room for doubt.

Look, we're talking about the difference between opinion and fact here. By its very nature, "fact" implies that you have enough evidence already that questioning that fact requires evidence of its own. If I hold some weaker opinion, then sure, it's entirely reasonable to hold an opinion contrary to that without the burden of proof immediately being on you.

You can look at any situation and pick and choose what facts you want to care about, and that process can be extremely biased and misguiding, even though all the facts will be correct. It's not so cut and dry as facts vs. fiction. If things were that simple the problem would be easily solved.

It is so cut and dry as facts vs fiction, but I think 2016 proved it's not easily solved.

Trump constantly spouted blatant fiction. He still does. This isn't one set of facts vs another.

Trump lies, then vilifies those who call out his lies, and somehow he's the hero.

> It is so cut and dry as facts vs fiction

No, it isn't. With complete sincerity I think you should make a serious effort to appreciate this possibility.

>and somehow he's the hero.

This happens because it's not as simple as facts vs. fiction. Yes, he does get some facts wrong. But the media does pick what facts to report on to always paint him in a bad light. This is why I said it's not so simple.

People can choose a great many things.

What they cannot choose, however, is what is truth, and what is reality.

Reality has a way of imposing itself. And a disregard for reality on the part of some has a profound way of imposing itself on the many.

Because it's uncomfortable to accept. On the one hand, democracy is touted as the perfect system in terms of fairness. But then the intellectuals are not content with letting people choose how the people, their local communities and inspirational leaders have convinced them into voting.

I.e. It becomes about controlling mind-share. Calling something out as "unfair", "biased", "propaganda", or "fake news" is one way of controlling the amount of mind-share it has with people that identify with it. So you can't just "let someone" have their "wrong" opinion, you have to "correct them". That is precisely what political correctness is, it's to "put down" unacceptable opinions with public witch hunts and legal pressure. I have no idea when it went from "leave people alone" with their probably "wrong" opinions, into "omg, you're not allowed to think/say that, you must be sexist/racist/homophobic and we'll make life a living hell for you, and we'll get you fired".

> On the one hand, democracy is touted as the perfect system in terms of fairness.

I don't disagree with your broader point, but I've never ever seen anyone tout democracy as "the perfect system in terms of fairness". Even back when it was the new hotness, writers on it (de Tocqueville et al) were very well aware of its flaws and failure modes.

It's a shame you've been downvoted, but I think it just enforces your point on how uncomfortable it is for people to accept it.