Commentary: Facts just don't mean what they used to mean

[babylonsister]

Commentary: Facts just don't mean what they used to mean

By Leonard Pitts Jr. | The Miami Herald


I got an email the other day that depressed me.

It concerned a piece I recently did that mentioned Henry Johnson, who was awarded the French Croix de Guerre in World War I for singlehandedly fighting off a company of Germans (some accounts say there were 14, some say almost 30, the ones I find most authoritative say there were about two dozen) who threatened to overrun his post. Johnson managed this despite the fact that he was only 5'4'' and 130 pounds, despite the fact that his gun had jammed, despite the fact that he was wounded 21 times.

My mention of Johnson's heroics drew a rebuke from a fellow named Ken Thompson, which I quote verbatim and in its entirety:

"Hate to tell you that blacks were not allowed into combat intell 1947, that fact. World War II ended in 1945. So all that feel good, one black man killing two dozen Nazi, is just that, PC bull."

In response, my assistant, Judi Smith, sent Mr. Thompson proof of Johnson's heroics: a link to his page on the website of Arlington National Cemetery. She thought this settled the matter.

Thompson's reply? "There is no race on headstones and they didn't come up with the story in tell 2002."

Judi: "I guess you can choose to believe Arlington National Cemetery or not."

Thompson: "It is what it is, you don't believe either..."

At this point, Judi forwarded me their correspondence, along with a despairing note. She is probably somewhere drinking right now.

You see, like me, she can remember a time when facts settled arguments. This is back before everything became a partisan shouting match, back before it was permissible to ignore or deride as "biased" anything that didn't support your worldview.

If you and I had an argument and I produced facts from an authoritative source to back me up, you couldn't just blow that off. You might try to undermine my facts, might counter with facts of your own, but you couldn't just pretend my facts had no weight or meaning.

But that's the intellectual state of the union these days, as evidenced by all the people who still don't believe the president was born in Hawaii or that the planet is warming. And by Mr. Thompson, who doesn't believe Henry Johnson did what he did.

more...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/23/87390/commentary-facts-just-dont-mean.html

[ixion]

1. And whose fault is it that facts have lost all meaning?

-- It's the politicians fault (ALL of them) for shattering the language with meaningless and empty rhetoric paraded as fact.

-- It's the fault of the US Media, for acting as enablers by not challenging this bogus rhetoric, and in fact acting as an echo chamber for politicians and pundits cultivating said rhetoric.

-- It's the fault of the American People -- you and me and everyone -- for allowing the shredding of our social fabric and the linguistic shattering of our language by the aforementioned.

It's difficult to fix the chard once it is in pieces. That's where we are now. This is a taste of the Tower of Babel -- that is, language has lost all meaning.

[babylonsister]

3. Did you read this? When confronted with facts, the guy refused

to believe them. I have two fairly intelligent brothers who are the same. They listen to hannity, beck, etc., and swallow the swill they serve up regardless of facts. When I point them to google, they refuse to go there. So I chalk it up to willful ignorance by a certain segment of this population who refuse to think for themselves and aren't interested in the truth. I blame the media.

[ixion]

4. Yes, I did read it...

and I'm painfully familiar with the syndrome.

It's willful ignorance on your brother's part (I have a father and uncle who are the same), but it's something much darker on the part of pols, pundits and the MSM, because it needs to be orchestrated to work.

[mrcheerful]

2. Of course every since Raygun told the brain dead that facts don't matter they have been

throwing facts away for beliefs that fit their views on how life works. Like the fact that hard work does not = wealth or the fact that most wealth involves very little work and the ability to con others into working for you where they do the hard work and you reap the wealth. And I guess Thompson ignores the fact that Blacks have fought in every war since the Revolution war. To his pea brain the desegregation of the armed forces in 1947 by Truman means blacks weren't allowed to serve in the armed forces. Which means he also ignores the Tuskegee airmen and their record during WWII.

[Demeter]

5. Denial Is Our National Religion

and I am STILL an Atheist, and proud of it.

[zipplewrath]

6. Not new

Pitts may be able to "remember a time" but he'd be hard pressed to prove that it ever existed. This problem isn't new. What's new is that a guy like Pitts is in any position to be even having the discussion with the sender. Mr. Thompson would have been considered some luntic fringe/crank and ignored. We don't ignore these people anymore. Glenn Beck calls them his "audience".

[pansypoo53219]

7. truthiness is good enough for the stupid.

BECAUSE georgee and republikkklans show IF YOU BELIEVE HARD ENOUGH, you can convince other that they are right. saddam DID do 9/11.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. Do we even teach children what a 'fact' or 'truth' is these days? The schools aren't

able to do so because some parent is always 'objecting' or is 'offended' by those things.

[Igel]

9. The objector was messed up.

Nazis in WWI?

And there were blacks in combat under US command before 1947. Not a great number. Some were emergency volunteers to help fill in with all-black platoons or units in otherwise all-white units. There were all-black brigades. But they were generally strongly segregated. Moreover, all-black units typically weren't assigned to combat.

However, his point isn't entirely wrong wrt Johnson--it's a bit more right than the exceptions vaguely mentioned in the preceding paragraph wuold indicate. It was just put exceptionally badly, and was exceptionally deductive. (Sort of Aristotelean, in a sense: You know the generalization, so all facts must comport with it.)

In WWI Henry Johnson's all-black National Guard unit (which was US Army) was assigned to service and support ops in France. It didn't serve as part of the US Command in combat in WWI. His unit was assigned to the French military command and while it sported US uniforms it also had French helmets/accessories. Under French command it saw combat. Under French command Mr. Johnson showed his bravery or at least excellence in combat. Therefore, when Johnson did his exceptionally brave and meritorious acts, he got the Croix de guerre, probably as recommended by his unit's commanders to their commanders and political leaders, for his service not to his, but to their, country.

In other words, Henry Johnson didn't see combat under US command and authority, even though he was in the US Army. There are a number important things pointed out by this anecdote--one side makes one while ignoring the generalization and some specifics, the other side points to another while looking at the generalization and ignoring other specifics (which, oddly, are actually fairly unimportant for this particular anecdote).

As for the overall tendency to confuse bias with critical thinking, both sides do it in spades. It is appropriate to point it out because the OP proceeds inductively from this token of misbegotten illogic to include people right of center or sometimes not even on the target scale--AGW denials, birthers. It's not a false conclusion, since the examples pointed out are examples of letting bias and appeals to authority outweigh critical thinking and, well, appeals to Unimpeachable Authority. However, the OP's conclusion is a limited one that masquerades (tacitly and by standard rule of conversational implicature) as a comprehensive conclusion when far more weight and a much stronger conclusion would have been to point out the screamed bias and self-donned blinders on both sides.

[Doctor_J]

10. Why don't we just start calling right wingers "mentally ill"?

that's what they are.

[Atticus]

11. K & R Lakoff offers an explanation here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x519670

It's lengthy, but scroll down to "False reason---"