The truth, the whole truth, and everything in between

There are objective truths, scientific facts that are universal: the Earth orbits the sun, the moon causes the tides, plants produce energy through photosynthesis, drinking juice will not cure cancer.

There are moral truths, which are subjective and depend on personal ethics and societal factors: all people are created equal, marriage should be between two consenting adults of any gender or race, slavery is abhorrent, murder is acceptable under no circumstance.

There’s fiction, satire, and spoofs which can be mistaken for truths: When I’m Gone is fiction and was not written by an 80-year-old, NASA did not say that we would experience 15 days of darkness last November, Planned Parenthood are not spending $8B on an “abortionplex”.

And then there’s everything in between, a myriad of topics and perspectives which should have legitimate debate and controversy: is AI dangerous? how should we solve the homeless situation in SF? is functional programming better than object-oriented programming?

In 1986 Daniel C. Hallin proposed a model for this in the context of journalism, his eponymous Hallin’s Spheres:

• Sphere of consensus: widespread agreement for what is true. Can be stated as fact and opposing views need not be referenced or considered.
• Sphere of controversy: there are reasonable parties with differing opinions that should be considered.
• Sphere of deviance: ideas that are unfounded or generally aren’t worthy of rational consideration.

The edges were always fuzzy, but what I think we’re seeing now is that the intersection of communities online, shifts in the media, and the rise of zero-cost publishing have caused his “Sphere of Controversy” to grow, or to have ill-defined, leaky edges.

There are now debates over what would once have been considered objective truths and scientific facts (climate change, vaccines, evolution). Similarly, topics that would have been written off as outlandish and ridiculous are now being propagated as possible truths (Obama’s birth certificate).

Aside: Brooke Gladstone, Ira Glass, and Daniel Hallin himself, had a good conversation about this in the context of NPR a few years ago.

So while I completely agree with Sean’s post, that the other side is not dumb, that we need to have empathy for other people’s viewpoints, that we shouldn’t mock other people’s beliefs, and that we need to try harder to play out a dialectic considering opposing perspectives, we also need to acknowledge that the landscape of truths is shifting, is confusing, and in some cases is intentionally being subverted.

And then what happens if we are unconsciously in one of the fuzzy edges ourselves?