Why Can’t We Agree On Facts?

Disagreement is normal. As long as complex, controversial topics exist, there will be disagreement. There is nothing inherently wrong with disagreement; it means people are thinking for themselves and looking at something from different points of views. Disagreement often is what pushes a society forward. But when people can’t agree about what they’re talking about, disagreements turn into major problems.

Disagreements about the very facts of something is nothing new. This is noted in the phrase “the winners write the history books.” In a sense, a certain amount of disagreement over the facts is an intrinsic part of disagreement itself. Why do brothers John and Joe disagree? John says Joe started pushing him. Joe says that John started it by name calling. If people agree about the facts, there’s less likely to be a disagreement in the first place. Also, if the facts are agreed upon, it puts greater scrutiny on the reasons both sides give. One may be called out for simply being in the wrong.

People having different perspectives on events are the main cause of disagreement. Having a different perspective means you interpret something completely differently. Thus, even two descriptions of the same event are described in such a way that it seems like there are two sets of facts. Take the argument over race and LGBT issues in the United States. The American left describes their side as “fighting for the rights” of those groups. The American right says they are fighting against racial demagoguery and false narratives about oppression that go too far. The abortion debate is described as “abortion rights” by the political left and “right to life of the child” by the political right.

Complicating this is the complex and nuanced nature of the disagreed upon facts. The most visceral disagreements are usually about things that cannot be summed up in a sentence or two. Very often, two nations with historical grievances against each other will argue that the other side is to blame for the hostilities. People from Nation A will say it started because Nation B did so and so. People in Nation B will respond that that was only in response to something Nation A did. There are usually grains of truth in the arguments that both sides make. Consequently, both sides can point to a tangible reason for why the think the way they do.

But while disagreements over facts have always been prevalent, disagreements today have a new element to them. Disagreements over facts that can be proven or disproven. In the United States, a huge reason for this is distrust for the people who report provable facts; the media. Today, a majority of Americans distrust the media. While a majority of those on both the political left and political right distrust the media, the distrust is more acute on the political right.

Most ostensibly neutral media sources do have a slant to the left, and have for decades. In the age of Donald Trump, this has gotten worse. It has gotten so much worse that here are numerous examples of the media actively advocating against Trump, and reporting noticeably differently on the same events if they are with another person. The media also uses terminology the left uses to describe controversial topics.

Consequently, many on the American right have no trust in the media at all, even when they report true things. There is always an expectation that the media will twist the facts of a story to benefit the political left. Even people who are sure that the political left is correct on more issues must understand this dynamic. It doesn’t mean those on the left have to change any of their views, but they do need to understand how the other side sees things. The left needs to understand that their views are ubiquitous in media, tech, universities, and the culture. They need to understand that this creates a natural backlash, that often manifests itself in conspiracy theories.

Another explanation for why the political right and left can’t agree on facts is they have not just different values, but fundamentally different orientations on what is important. Most on the left see a history of structural unfairness in society. They see their side as pushing to fix that unfairness and its legacy. Left leaners don’t view their actions as perpetuating race division or lying about the extent of racism. They view it as getting to equity. And they view equity, equal results as the ultimate goal, rather than equality, equal opportunity.

When two sides have such different perspectives, it becomes difficult to bridge the gap between how they see facts. Giving more facts won’t necessarily change this. The only thing that can get at changing this is if both sides try to understand how the other thinks. The premises and values that the other side has. Even if you end up disagreeing with the way someone else views the world, if you understand how they view it, you understand why they have the values they do.

There is no cure all for this problem. In fact it’s so acute, that I’m sure that some who read this article will detect biases from me. They might object to the way I’m describing the differences in points of view. That in and of itself is representative of the profound nature of disagreement on facts. Even the most fair and neutral person cannot help but surreptitiously (consciously or unconsciously) inserting their views in some of their descriptions of events. I try my best to keep those instances minimal, but I don’t always succeed.

But if you talked with me and got to understand my viewpoints, you’d have a better understanding of why I describe things as I do. I believe that the best way that we can mitigate this problem of disagreement over the facts is try our absolute best to understand how the other side thinks. Allow yourself to understand their preconceived notions. And then do your best to incorporate that knowledge in how you think. Finally, be honest about your own biases, and keep trying to understand those you disagree with every day.