Knowledge vs. Belief

I was impressed with an op-ed piece by Charles Blow in the April 3 New York Times titled “An Article of Faith.” In it he equated the difference between the political left and right to that between mind and heart, evidence and emotions, reason and anger and what we know and what we believe. How about logic and wishful thinking? This argument is a bit simplistic in describing those of us left of center. We also have beliefs to which we are as committed, a bit less audibly, as the folks on the right are to theirs. I agree completely with the other half of the equation.

Analogous to this thought are differences between the crews at MSNBC and Fox. Both have strong, opposing beliefs on controversial matters and both let their beliefs influence their choice of reporting and the spin they put on it. The difference is that at MSBC the house prejudices are argued with facts which, when they’re inaccurate, are corrected on the air. Much of what you hear on Fox is opinion, some of which, with a little luck, might turn out to be factual. The untrue part is repeated so often and for so long that many people come to accept it as fact. The “vast majority” claimed for the network position against health care reform, is pure fiction. The polls have been conflicting and close.     

 

There’s no mystery in what Republicans believe and how they will respond to proposals on any serious financial reforms that might come up for consideration this year. They’re “agin ‘em” for reasons that don’t require explanation. I eagerly look forward to hearing their rebuttal to the following set of indisputable historical circumstances.

In the past century we’ve had two periods of extended major financial distress. They were both preceded by long periods of rampant Laissez Faire. After the regulations resulting from the Great Depressions had time to take effect we had over a half century of relative stability. It ended after a major part of these regulations had been revoked.

Coincidence doesn’t prove causation. To say that because something has happened twice under a similar circumstances means it will happen for a third time for the same reason violates strict rules of logic, in this case barely. Republicans can argue that this pattern was either one hell of a coincidence or a miracle. But as one who by Mr. Blow’s standard leans in the direction of mind/evidence/reason/logic, I consider a miracle merely a figure of speech. Once it’s happened it’s no longer a miracle. At least that’s what I believe.