Wow, I don't believe what I'm reading! I never heard so many arguments for the value of falsehood over fact. Can any so-called "larger truth" really be built upon what amounts to a pack of lies? Most of us non-intellectuals, who make their living out in the real world dealing with facts, would think not. Not to mention (although I will mention it) all those arguments as to the very definition of the concept of "fact". It reminds me of the famous recent quote by an equally famous former scholar who had a problem with the definition of the word "is". It is bizarre. When one man tries to ferret out the facts, why the very personal attacks on his motives and credibility? Why must one pompously claim that he is more of a journalist than a scholar? And is that such bad thing? It is most likely because that is all that is left to his detractors, the truth being beyond their reach (and beyond their comprehension). I don't think the standard of truth should be different for different branches of science. What would we think of a scientist who falsified his results when conducting critical medical research? Shall we defend him by claiming that his actual results don't matter, as long as he is an earnest and sympathetic character? Then perhaps treat his findings as legitimate, teach them to young and naive medical students and attack those who would expose him? It makes no sense, but that is what we are talking about here. I'll set it straight: Facts, simply defined facts, are inherently valuable because they allow us to make correct decisions about how we live and how we treat others. Anything else has no value other than as propaganda, to advance a particular agenda, or, at best, as entertaining fiction.
JOIN THE DEBATE Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity.
| ||||||||
previous response
Copyright © 1999 by The Chronicle of Higher Education