A passion for facts?

Of late, I've run into a lot of what I consider to be either outright factual errors, or misinterpretations of the facts.  Facts are the foundation upon which scientists base their work;  they are the observations and other evidence that provide the basis for a scientific interpretation.  Hopefully, the facts behind such an interpretation don't include errors of one sort or another.  Many different sources for errors are possible and it's widely understood in science that our facts may not be so unshakable as we hope.  The possibility of factual errors needs to be recognized in any scientific work, and efforts expended to reduce the chances for such errors to creep into the facts we use as evidence for or against our hypotheses.

We've recently seen an example of journalistic factual errors with regards to the tornadoes in Alabama - it was reported by Diane Sawyer on ABC's World News Tonight that the tornadoes "struck without warning" when the fact is that there were excellent warnings for the tornadoes, at least in terms of the current state of the science.  And information included in the story recommended that the viewers consider taking advantage of a FEMA service that, in fact, doesn't exist!  Nothing was said about weather radios and other means of obtaining weather information that people should be using to keep themselves up to date with developing hazardous weather - facts that would have been of service to the public.  Saying "It struck without warning!" is an outright factual error in this case, and no responsible journalist should ever make such an error.  But it seems we've come to accept, for the most part, that journalistic standards in the USA have deteriorated substantially.  Fact-checking has become optional, in the haste to get the story out.  Journalists should have a deep-seated passion for facts, just as scientists should, but - fact is, most journalists and even some scientists seem unconcerned about factual errors anymore.

Even if you have your facts correct, unfortunately, this doesn't necessarily mean that your interpretation of them is correct.  You may have overlooked other, mitigating facts (intentionally or otherwise) that would obviate your hypothesis, or reduce the probability that it's a correct interpretation.  In my experience with journalists these days, many of them are not only unconcerned about facts - they've also made up their minds before their research is even fairly begun.  The "story" is already written, and they're simply seeking confirmation of their story during their "research" into the story.  They have an "angle" on the story that represents a powerful bias when they should be as unbiased as is humanly  possible.  Journalists should let the facts speak for themselves, rather than imposing their will on the facts.  This is just as wrong as it is for scientists who are busy trying to confirm their interpretations, when in fact, they should be trying instead as hard as they can to refute their interpretations!  Scientists should pursue vigorously any avenue by which their ideas could be refuted, without having to be told not to overlook such things!  Anyone can overlook something, but we should try as hard as we can not to do so.  We scientists tend to be fond of our own ideas and not so fond of the ideas of our colleagues.  That is, we tend to have a "confirmation bias" - we want to accept facts that confirm our ideas and to explain away facts that refute them.  Only by being aware of this tendency and seeking actively to overcome it can good science be done.  The same can be said for journalists, who should make a professional re-commitment to fact-checking.

Confirmation bias is rampant in the political polarization that characterizes the USA right now.  Many citizens seem unaware of the fact that all humans are biased and so by default fail to work hard to overcome their personal biases. Those who give free rein to their biases allow those biases to reinforce themselves into hardened positions that can't be overcome by any rational argument, no matter how fact-based.  Journalists have a serious responsibility to help the public obtain accurate factual information and to offer as unbiased an interpretation of those facts as possible.  Unfortunately, in my experience, the facts suggest many journalists fail in this obligation.  The facts are not represented by two polar opposites having a confrontational debate, either - the shades of gray in between bipolar positions are simply not being represented.  The two sides of a polarized debate may not be equal, as is the case in the global warming "controversy".  Presenting them as equals is a factual error!

Ignorance of the facts is just as dangerous as an outright factual error.  In some discussions with which I'm familiar, various people engage in a sort of revisionist view of historical facts (such as those who claim US law is directly descended from biblical law).  A journalist who's unaware of the history of ideas and their underlying facts is ill-equipped to do interviews with people concerning those ideas.  Such journalists are easily bullied by adroit politicians, for example, as seen in most of the recent GOP debates among the candidates for President.

I'm told by some that my concern for the facts in crockumentaries is just my nerdishness showing.  Who really cares if the facts are all screwed up?  It's my belief that we all need to have a passion for the facts, and to act on recognition of our own biases and ignorance during discourse about how facts are to be interpreted.