Perhaps I was being too vague but the key to my point is this:
Doesn’t mean those facts are pertinent to the question at hand
What I’m talking about is facts about people’s situation in life. Their friends, their family, their community. It’s well-known that many people will believe the medical advice of a close family member over that of a doctor. Does this mean that they (through family connections) have access to some secret medical knowledge?
No.
What it means is that a person’s instincts to trust their family and close friends — members of their tribe — make it difficult for them to accept contradictory information from their doctor (a stranger). You can extend this issue to almost any domain of expertise (apart from those in which the person in question has had formal training). This is why conspiracies, myths, and other falsehoods can be so difficult to dispel from the outside of communities: the people who believe these things are not going to take the word of strangers who try to contradict their friends and family.
And so what I mean about people having different facts is this: their relationships and communities are different. Their whole worldview depends on their ability to trust the people they’re closest to. So when it comes to the question of whether to believe a falsehood (myth/conspiracy/scandal) or to reject it and in so doing reject their own community (with catastrophic results for their life), it should not be a surprise that they choose to believe a falsehood.
And in that I agree. But I read the OP as saying something different.
As an example: Trump is a rapist. That’s a fact. How is that a fact? Well, his victim detailed the rape, produced evidence to corroborate it, and a judge and jury agreed, fining him 85 Million dollars for saying he didn’t rape the victim. Was he tried, convicted, and sentenced under a charge of rape? No. Statute of limitations and other reasons prohibited that. But the “fact” remains.
Now, the evidence of that fact is: the corporate news reporting of it AND the trial AND the transcripts which include witness testimony. Can all of those things exist for something that isn’t a fact? In extreme examples, yes, but it’s very rare. So as best as anyone can determine, this is a fact about a political figure.
A trump supporter will not believe it. Just like that. No reasoning, no plausible counter-argument, just - no. Because that is against their belief system. A straightforward rejection of a simple proven fact.
I’m saying I think that’s qualitatively different from a person altering their belief about the relatively unknowable - what is “god”, the purpose of life, how health is maintained - all of which have varying degrees of provable empirical fact but which are malleable to one’s family, society, culture, etc.
Right, but now we need to ask ourselves how a person could get to the point where they don’t believe the media reporting all of this and instead they choose to believe Trump.
It starts with their community and it ends with a total collapse in their trust in public institutions, including the media. Then, if they and all their friends and family have begun to believe that the media (what they might call “left wing media”) are engaged in a conspiracy to disenfranchise themselves and their community (by trying to disqualify their chosen candidate through alternative means) it becomes easier to see why they would reject the facts.
It’s really a serious problem for democracy in the U.S. (but also in other western countries) and it didn’t begin nor doesn’t end with Trump. It’s a sign of major fault lines through society.
If you mean their own configuration of facts, I agree. If you mean “things they believe”, I disagree that those are “facts”.
Perhaps I was being too vague but the key to my point is this:
What I’m talking about is facts about people’s situation in life. Their friends, their family, their community. It’s well-known that many people will believe the medical advice of a close family member over that of a doctor. Does this mean that they (through family connections) have access to some secret medical knowledge?
No.
What it means is that a person’s instincts to trust their family and close friends — members of their tribe — make it difficult for them to accept contradictory information from their doctor (a stranger). You can extend this issue to almost any domain of expertise (apart from those in which the person in question has had formal training). This is why conspiracies, myths, and other falsehoods can be so difficult to dispel from the outside of communities: the people who believe these things are not going to take the word of strangers who try to contradict their friends and family.
And so what I mean about people having different facts is this: their relationships and communities are different. Their whole worldview depends on their ability to trust the people they’re closest to. So when it comes to the question of whether to believe a falsehood (myth/conspiracy/scandal) or to reject it and in so doing reject their own community (with catastrophic results for their life), it should not be a surprise that they choose to believe a falsehood.
And in that I agree. But I read the OP as saying something different.
As an example: Trump is a rapist. That’s a fact. How is that a fact? Well, his victim detailed the rape, produced evidence to corroborate it, and a judge and jury agreed, fining him 85 Million dollars for saying he didn’t rape the victim. Was he tried, convicted, and sentenced under a charge of rape? No. Statute of limitations and other reasons prohibited that. But the “fact” remains.
Now, the evidence of that fact is: the corporate news reporting of it AND the trial AND the transcripts which include witness testimony. Can all of those things exist for something that isn’t a fact? In extreme examples, yes, but it’s very rare. So as best as anyone can determine, this is a fact about a political figure.
A trump supporter will not believe it. Just like that. No reasoning, no plausible counter-argument, just - no. Because that is against their belief system. A straightforward rejection of a simple proven fact.
I’m saying I think that’s qualitatively different from a person altering their belief about the relatively unknowable - what is “god”, the purpose of life, how health is maintained - all of which have varying degrees of provable empirical fact but which are malleable to one’s family, society, culture, etc.
Reality: 2+2=4
Trump: 2+2=5
MAGAts: 2+2=5!
Reality: no, it really, really doesn’t.
MAGAts: I don’t subscribe to your facts! 2+2=5!
That’s. what I think the OP is describing.
Right, but now we need to ask ourselves how a person could get to the point where they don’t believe the media reporting all of this and instead they choose to believe Trump.
It starts with their community and it ends with a total collapse in their trust in public institutions, including the media. Then, if they and all their friends and family have begun to believe that the media (what they might call “left wing media”) are engaged in a conspiracy to disenfranchise themselves and their community (by trying to disqualify their chosen candidate through alternative means) it becomes easier to see why they would reject the facts.
It’s really a serious problem for democracy in the U.S. (but also in other western countries) and it didn’t begin nor doesn’t end with Trump. It’s a sign of major fault lines through society.