Fact and Opinion - Shame on you Neil deGrasse Tyson

"The good thing about science is that it is true whether you believe it or not" - Neil deGrasse Tyson 

This is a little offensive. The more appropriate quote should be 

"The good thing about a Fact is that it is true whether you believe it or not"

I agree this is a characteristic of a Fact. What bother's me is Neil's rather overt assertion that science equals fact. Neil's statement is really Neil's opinion presented as a fact.  And to claim that all things scientific should be considered fact is a rather bold ASSERTION, something that ironically is not very scientific. 

(Science isn't even a "thing" whose veracity can be tested.  It is a way of doing things, a process for the careful observation and testing of theories, in the hopes of identifying a fact.  But now i'm just being nit picky about his choice of words.)

I'm actually bothered in general by the liberal use of the word Fact to describe things that really are debatable.  What we need is a little more clarity on the definition of a Fact, and less about the characteristics of a Fact.

Here are some "Facts" that have been presented to me of late:
1) Everything Scientific is factual
2) Global warming is Man made
3) Being a stay at home mom is better for your kids than being a working mom
4) Openly carrying a weapon is unsafe
5) People are inherently misogynistic, racist, and discriminatory
6) Vaccines cause autism 

I'm not here to debate any of these "facts" that isn't the point of this post.  The point is that people are very liberal in their use of the word Fact and then have the audacity to defend these "facts" by using Neil's assertion.  Basically saying that they are true whether the person they are debating with believes them or not.  Like that is the end of the discussion.

Dictonary.com defines fact in 5 ways, but i'm only going to list the first one: 
1) something that actually exists; reality; truth: 

To claim something is a Fact is to claim objective reality.  People may not realize how BOLD of a claim this is.  This is big time.  You are essentially claiming that what you are saying is irrefutable, that there is no possible valid argument against it, that this is a true description of reality.  That regardless of your beliefs or values to the contrary you must acknowledge this Fact.  This Fact can have potentially life changing implications.  Some people realize this when they proclaim a fact, but others do so without any regard.

So, first of all, understand what you are claiming.  

Second, if you claiming a fact, be responsible and actually have real evidence to support this "fact". Give some actual thought to how you are going to prove your "fact" and make sure it is legit. Because asking people to change their view of reality is no small ask, and doing so flippantly is highly irresponsible and potentially dangerous.  You may need to take responsibility for some of the fallout that this fact may cause.  Understanding of reality affects every part of our lives.

Third, the inverse of the above quote is also true: 

"Just because you believe something doesn't make it factual or not factual."  

Don't use your belief, or other's, as evidence of your "fact"  Beliefs aren't always based on or affected by Facts.  Do use the sciences, the legal system, and historical research to help uncover facts.  You should feel OBLIGATED to do so.

In conclusion, if you don't have the backing to call your statement a Fact, then just call it what it is, an opinion.  It isn't as pretentious as claiming a fact, and requires a lot less research.  It shows some humility and has the pleasant side affect of not fucking with people's reality. And people get violently defensive about their reality.


On a different but related point beliefs/opinions can be just as powerful and life changing as Facts, but they aren't as concrete.  We have two different words for a reason.  Use them correctly.

Stop Grouping me in with the Crazies!

So here is what I’m tired of:  People using the lunatic fringe to attack the middle.  I’m talking specifically about using the actions of extremists to denounce an entire religion, belief, value, or movement as if they are representative of the whole.

I’m not sure what to call this other than just plain old discrimination… humm, maybe type casting?  Basically by using the outlandish behavior of a small group of people to denounce everyone that shares a similar point of view you are typecasting the rest of us into the same role as the crazies.  This really isn’t fair, and is pretty dishonest as well.

By way of example, Westboro Baptist Church’s highly controversial demonstrations invariably draw comments along the lines of “this is why Christianity is bullshit” like every Christian believes the hate these guys spew.  

Another recent example, Open Carry Texas, the organization that has people carrying long rifles out to restaurants in Texas and pretty much unnerving everyone around them. People will say “this is why gun owners are stupid” or “this is why we need more restrictive gun laws” As if it is impossible to support the right to openly carry a weapon but still think it is unsafe and ill advised to carry around long weapons where they aren’t needed. 

Here is another popular one, every men’s rights activist is a potential Elliot Rodger or at least guilty of misogony. 

And here is one that has been around for a while, every Muslim is a terrorist.

An entire ideology or belief system isn’t wrong just because there are some misguided souls out there that take too far a belief that millions of perfectly sane people adhere to.   And you shouldn't use the lunatic fringe as evidence against the sane people.  It is unfair, incorrect and frankly lazy.

I feel that people – on facebook especially - do this often.  Many folks do it without realizing they are doing it.  I’m writing this to call attention to the behavior so we can all stop type casting people into the role of a crazy when chances are they really are a pretty level headed person with reasonable beliefs that just so happen to also be shared by some crazies.

Additional Training Requirement for Conceal and Carry Permit?

I have said before that I'm actually conceptually in support of further training for gun owners and conceal and carry owners as well.  But I feel like we have to be pretty careful about legislating good intentions.  That good intention being making you more proficient with the gun so you can better defend yourself and others before you are able to carry a concealed weapon. 

People should have the right to protect themselves whether they are good at it or not.  Forcing people to meet a certain level of proficiency with a gun before they can protect themselves with it is kind of like saying you can’t defend yourself with your fists unless you are at least a yellow belt in karate.  When the shit is going down you do the best with what you’ve got whether you are trained or not.  I think it is important to preserve that right.    

I agree it makes good sense to be proficient with a gun if you really want to protect yourself with one. But, even if I’m not, I still have a right to protect myself with the gun.  I get worried when we start making laws and regulations that start to infringe on basic rights even if they are well intentioned.

A good corollary to this argument is the training required to operate a much more deadly device, the automobile.  Fact: automobiles kill way more people than guns do each year.  The requirements to get a driver’s license are almost exactly the same as are required for a conceal and carry permit.  In my opinion both are pretty lax.  In both cases you have to take a written test and you have to take a proficiency test.  With a car you have to navigate a parking lot, and perhaps some side streets if your DMV instructor is a hard ass.  With conceal and carry you have to hit the paper at least a few times.  Does this parking lot test really prepare you for the realities of driving in gridlock every day, or teach you how to turn into a skid on ice or any other important info about controlling this giant metal missile? Not really.  Does putting a few shots on the paper make you a good marksman, or capable of controlling your nerves when a potential murderer threatens you? No.  Neither of these tests really prepare you for the realities of operating a deadly device under stress, but then they aren’t really designed to, they are more concerned with making sure you know the laws and rules around operating more than actually how to operate. 

So to wrap up this analogy here, cars are 3x more deadly then firearms (according to the 2010 gun homicide numbers from CDC 11,078 and the NHTSA traffic safety facts 32,885 motor vehicle deaths). The requirements to get a license are simple and require minimal demonstrated proficiency. And oh by the way driving is not protected by the United States Bill of Rights.  So why aren’t people lobbying for more extensive driving tests and license requirements every time there is a car accident or vehicle related death? 

This isn’t the case for guns however; all anyone ever talks about when there is a gun death is stricter gun laws.  Better testing is often cited as one of those stricter gun laws that should be enacted.  And again, I’m not saying I’m against it but I do think we need to be careful here.  If we are going to let the operation of the (3x more deadly) automobile continue to be poorly operated with no real changes to licensing procedures then we need to apply the same reasoning to the use of the less deadly gun. If we aren’t going to overburden people with more proficiency requirements to qualify for the privilege of driving then we can’t overburden people for the right of protecting themselves with a gun. 

That is unless we want to be hypocrites.