An obvious incapacity for abstract conceptions made him peculiarly susceptible to the magic of generalization, and one felt he would have been at the mercy of any Cause that spelled itself with a capital letter.
Edith Wharton - Crucial Instances (1901)
The public domain is crowded with abstract ideas, but like Marley’s ghost shackled to his cash boxes, abstract concepts can drag a heavy load of uncertainties and caveats behind them. Away with all that - politically, it is much simpler to use crude generalisations.
A good example of Edith Wharton’s point is the modern growth of fact-checking, as if facts are all we require to set aside the labyrinthine complexities of real life. Even the notion of authoritative fact-checking is a covert generalisation. Facts have to be selected, but who makes the selection?
As a more specific example we could consider an abstract concept such as the scientific method as applied to climate change. Climate change as sold by the media sweeps aside the scientific method and other boring but necessary abstractions such as evidence and uncertainty. It simply replaces difficult and undramatic abstractions with the magic of generalisation such as virtually all scientists agree…
We saw something broadly similar during the coronavirus debacle except that here in the UK the scientists were plonked behind public lecterns. Abstract concepts such as diagnostic uncertainty and uncertainties around draconian and horribly expensive public mitigation policies were swept aside by the magic of generalisation implied by those lecterns. It was almost identical to virtually all scientists agree…
We see it again in the Ukraine conflict where abstract concepts such as evidence and the uncertainty of sources have been swept aside by the magic of good guy / bad guy generalisations with which we are all familiar. To a significant degree, this one is sold as all decent people agree…
And of course we’ll see it again…. And again…
A good example of Edith Wharton’s point is the modern growth of fact-checking, as if facts are all we require to set aside the labyrinthine complexities of real life. Even the notion of authoritative fact-checking is a covert generalisation. Facts have to be selected, but who makes the selection?
As a more specific example we could consider an abstract concept such as the scientific method as applied to climate change. Climate change as sold by the media sweeps aside the scientific method and other boring but necessary abstractions such as evidence and uncertainty. It simply replaces difficult and undramatic abstractions with the magic of generalisation such as virtually all scientists agree…
We saw something broadly similar during the coronavirus debacle except that here in the UK the scientists were plonked behind public lecterns. Abstract concepts such as diagnostic uncertainty and uncertainties around draconian and horribly expensive public mitigation policies were swept aside by the magic of generalisation implied by those lecterns. It was almost identical to virtually all scientists agree…
We see it again in the Ukraine conflict where abstract concepts such as evidence and the uncertainty of sources have been swept aside by the magic of good guy / bad guy generalisations with which we are all familiar. To a significant degree, this one is sold as all decent people agree…
And of course we’ll see it again…. And again…
3 comments:
If we've all got degrees, then we need to take part in public discourse. If we didn't, then people would ask what use the degrees were. But when we got our degrees someone forgot to supply the education, so the only type of public discourse we are suited for is the deployment of misunderstood generalisation.
I've always considered the statement ' you are entitled to your own opinion but your not entitled to your own facts' as particularly stupid. As you say who decides on the veracity of 'facts'? Facts are often nebulous, multi-faceted, sometimes difficult to discern. What an arrogant statement.
Sam - fortunately those misunderstood generalisations do seem to work as long as the misunderstanding is widely shared and reality doesn't intervene.
Tammly - yes it is arrogant - one of those supercilious attempts to close down a debate.
Post a Comment