Why Facts Are the Enemy of Truth: Facts and Misrepresented Context

The definition of truth is the quality or state of being true. The word truth is used in everyone’s life, whether it is a mom teaching their kid to always tell the truth, or a kid learning that telling the truth can hurt someone’s feelings. The truth can be both right and wrong, depending on the circumstances. Telling the truth can also differ depending on the outcome. An example of this can be in a court of law and being sworn to an oath, to tell the truth, or go to jail. On the other hand, telling the truth can lead to a loss of friends because of something as simple as telling them that the dress they are wearing makes them look fat. There are many different ways that the truth can be used. A few examples of this are being good, bad, hurtful, and useful along with many other words. Some people say that honesty is the best policy, while others believe that the truth hurts.

Facts vs Truth

Don Quixote once said, “Facts are the enemy of truth” in a musical based on Cervantes’ Don Quixote called Man of La Mancha. If one defines truth as what we want to believe in and view as compatible to us and facts as a small element of reality as construed by an individual, then the following statement by Quixote is valid. Throughout history and science, facts consistently appear, but unprocessed facts are truth’s opposition. A person’s facts can also be fatally misrepresented when taken out of context. In the end, any person ends up believing what fits well with their personality. Facts do not only reveal pieces of truth, but they only represent a small fraction of a principle in its whole.

Throughout history and science, facts support a widespread understanding towards any certain circumstance. Scientific facts are complex in their nature, and when taken literally, they deceive us from the truth behind it. Without knowing the background information relating to a fact, one cannot make an explicit conclusion about something. To create an educated postulation about a revelation, one must examine the fact. All audiences focus on the aspect of the truth over time as truths broaden. The scientific explanation is not appealing in a factious state, but when the truth leaks, it catches the attention of all its readers. The truth may never be revealed without looking into the background of a fact. Such an example is during trials in court. Lawyers attempt to convince the jury with tricky facts that create doubts within the minds of the people serving on the panel. If the facts are convincing enough, the lawyers will never have to depose the real truth behind what they stated as their factual evidence. The truth conceals within history and will never meet the minds of the jurors of the trial. As result, unprocessed “facts are the enemy of truth” and often digress the conventional mind away from the actual truth concealed behind it.

A person’s perception of what someone else just said can be fully taken out of context. No matter if it is a truth or a fact, almost anything taken out of context can end up misrepresented. In society, two different people can hear the same interpretation and make it entirely different. When it comes down to politics, two key parties have contradicting views towards how society should be governed. For instance, when an undecided voter hears the truth about a situation involving today’s leadership they hear the truth about it and make their own speculation and beliefs about it. The opposite happens when a Republican hears the same story. When a Republican hears something concerning a pro-Democrat choice, they only hear and support what they already believe. Based on their pre-existing political ideology toward the topic under consideration, their decision emerges. The Republican and Democrat’s dogma are already a stated point when it comes to politics. One can hear the truth only if they are neutral and if it is a commonly universal declaration, new to any negotiation. “Facts are the enemy of truth” when not seen directly in its proper relationship with society.

After all, a person ends up believing what they personally want to believe. They choose what fits right in relation to their expertise and their views towards the truth or fact. Over time, truths can be altered based on who is explaining their point of view towards such a tale. As time moves on, truths pass along from one generation to the next, and as more people discover this principle it becomes more interestingly attractive. One would argue that facts lead to the truth, and they support each other rather than go against themselves. No matter what impact facts or truths combined have against an individual, they will always end up believing what they want to believe. Their opinion is what the whole answer comes down to when making the decision. It is vital to know when there is not enough information backing up a fact. Keep an open mind and make sure to have enough information to back up your hypothesis instead of believing every little detail presented.

Conclusion

As Don Quixote once said, “Facts are the enemy of truth.” Throughout science and history, several facts are used, but not thoughtfully concluded about as result. These unprocessed facts lead to a misrepresented context. People stand up for what they believe when it comes down to the end, but facts represent the enemy of truth because they only represent a fraction of the entire truth.

References

1. Bohn, K. (2018). Truth, facts, and the law. In R. Goodman, S. Elstein, & C. W. Craver (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of philosophy of evidence (pp. 376-386). Routledge.
2. Borgmann, A. (2018). Post-truth, lies, and bullshit: The need for honesty in an age of deception. Oxford University Press.
3. Fuller, S. (2018). Post-truth: Knowledge as a power game. Anthem Press.
4. Kofman, J. (2004). From truth to fact: Information, history, and the twentieth century. History and Theory, 43(4), 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2303.2004.00286.x
5. McNeill, P. (2019). Fact-checking as public philosophy: The case of post-truth. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 36(2), 237-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12264