"Alternative Facts"

Kellyanne Conway responds to accusations that reports from the Trump White House are lies. She calls the White House claims merely ‘alternative facts’. What might she mean by that? Of course falsehoods can be used to contradict an opponent's claims. BUT, "alternative facts" could very well have a different meaning and a useful role in public discourse.

Consider how you tend to focus on part of a whole to explain the whole, like two sides of a coin. Normally in human nature a party will stake a claim for truth based on what they already believe and then collect the evidence to support that claim. This generally involves both a selective subset of the facts as well as a selective context within which to present the facts. This selective use of facts and context then forces people with the opposing view to select facts and context not included by the original party.

This choice of evidence excluded or slanted from an opposing argument can be called "alternative facts."

These are not false hoods or lies, but a different orientation driven by an opposing belief. Let's look at two common examples. When economic "experts" predict where the stock market will go in the future, they usually start with an intuitive sense of whether it is going up or down. This establishes a belief that then influences the facts they collect and present as evidence to support their claim. If they believe the market is going down, they may point to high interest rates, large amounts of debt and valuations. If they believe the markets may go up, then they point to higher GDP growth and low unemployment. They would usually pick different time frames as context that best support there position. All of these "facts" provide evidence for a position already taken. Otherwise, how can you explain two smart economists with two opposing claims about the future of the market? This is actually normal and managed with civility in public discourse among economists. Neither claims the other is lying, but rather accepts that each puts a different priority on different facts. An opposing view could claim they are using "alternative facts."

There are many debates in public discourse that are not so civil. Climate change and abortion are two. Both stem from two opposing basic belief systems. Climate change advocates believe the government needs to play a major role in choices society makes about energy sources because of the long term risk to the world's environment. Opponents belief energy choices should have a market driven outcome to produce the highest standard of living and economic prosperity. Climate change advocates pick scientific studies and time frames that advocate their position and opponents choose studies and time frames that support their opposing view. I am not sure why this topic results in protests and major divisions among people, but ti does. Each side uses the facts they claim support their position and therefore the opponents "alternative facts" must be lies. BUT, maybe they are not, just a different subset of evidences that do not support the other sides beliefs.

With abortion, the debates even get nastier. One party sees abortion as the right of the woman who is pregnant to choose what is best for her. It is a fact that an unwanted pregnancy disrupts the life of the mother.Opponents claim that abortion violates the rights of the yet unborn child. Facts show that at some point an embryo is a child. Each position is anchored in a belief about the woman or the child and then supportive arguments select the facts that favor their position. The opposing side's facts are not necessarily lies, but simply an alternative set of facts.

It appears that Trump's election has put the debate of opposing positions on steroids. It may be because those with liberal beliefs have been in power with a media that supports their beliefs. Now that there is another sheriff in town, the power has shifted and so must the approach. Without the political power, liberals and their media buddies must delegitimize those in power. It seems that their choice of modus operandi is to claim that their "alternative facts" are mere lies.

If those in power wish to effectively participate in the public discourse, it seems they need to be able to discuss "Alternative Facts" as an alternative perspective, not a false one.

We just have so much to ponder these days ....