Skip to main content

Do facts matter any more?



Beyond posting pictures of my kids for my family to see, I don’t spend much time on Facebook, but today I made an exception when I saw somebody claiming that the Queen is “worth £57bn” and criticising her for taking £360M of tax payers money to fix up Buckingham Palace. I couldn’t resist pointing out that she doesn’t own Buck House so she wouldn’t be paying for the repairs and, more importantly, she isn’t worth anything close to £57bn. According to the Sunday Times Rich List her wealth is around £360M.

This led to a discussion on various aspects of law between me (Post Graduate Diploma in Law, Called to the Bar and admitted to the Roll of Solicitors) and a man who claims a MSc(Hons) in General Knowledge – I don’t know if that’s a real qualification or not but it sounds made up. The discussion moved across property law and the law of trusts. It ended when I made the comment that my interlocutor clearly lacks basic knowledge of the law of trusts and equitable obligations. He promptly blocked me. I am told that he made a further comment complaining that I had insulted him and that I should respect his genuinely held belief about the wealth of the Queen and how trusts work, despite the evidence not supporting the former and him being wrong on the latter.

This got me thinking about the modern phenomena of people who seriously believe that their opinion should be listened to whether or not it is supported by facts. If you spend much time on Twitter or Facebook you’ll see this attitude but it isn’t confined to the internet. A while ago a friend told me he wanted the UK to leave the EU because he was fed up of people coming from places like India to take British jobs. I asked him how the EU affected immigration from India, he didn’t know. I asked what aspects of Tier 1 entry he was unhappy with, he didn’t know what it was. The story was the same for the other immigration routes. He was outraged that I dared question him on the facts behind his opinion and told me that they didn’t matter because, “this is what I believe”.

It’s not just lawyers who put up with this nonsense. Despite there being clear and compelling evidence for climate change, a round Earth, evolution and the Moon landings there are still strong movements across the world who deny all of these things – yes flat Earthers are very much real and with us in the 21st century! The one thing they all have in common is that they demand others respect their beliefs.

It’s been said that we have moved into a post-factual world and that seems true. We certainly seem to be in a world where people think their views are important, valid and worthy of consideration even where they are based on fallacy, mis-information and myth.

Is it insulting to say somebody doesn’t understand a topic? No. Not if it’s true. Had my Facebook friend been an expert tax lawyer or my real life friend an immigration expert then it would be very insulting but that’s not the case. People often seem to think there’s something wrong in admitting to not knowing something and they become upset if somebody who does know more tells them they are wrong.

Does everyone have the right to have their opinion respected and listened to? No. If I rock up to an operating theatre and tell the surgeon that in my opinion he should be doing open heart surgery under local anaesthetic to aid post-surgery recovery the surgeon would quite rightly kick me out because my opinion is worthless and backed up by no facts or evidence. Yet when it comes to immigration, law, fiscal policy, etc people expect to be taken seriously despite having no more knowledge about their topic than I have on open heart surgery.

TV is guilty of promoting this with their constant search for balance on topics where balance means well qualified and knowledgeable people put up to argue against the untrained and ignorant. How else can we describe the debate on climate change broadcast by the BBC between Nigel Lawson (former Chancellor of the Exchequer) and Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, world respected dynamical meteorologist and climatologist at Imperial College London?

We all get a little carried away sometimes, especially when a strongly held belief is challenged. But, if people took a moment to reflect that often our opinions are based on a gut feeling, a sense of injustice or moral righteousness and not on any actual facts then the world (especially the online world) might get a little more pleasant. Unless you’re a Brexiteer in which case YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRO… oh, sorry I got carried away there, I’ll try not to let it happen again. Even our strongest beliefs might not be correct and there’s nothing wrong with being wrong provided we are willing to adapt our thinking to match new facts.

Will that happen? Probably not.

Comments

  1. You know the Dunning-Kruger effect has definitely gone mainstream when the word "expert" is seen as an insult.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And when it come to outrageous so called religious beliefs.......Jedi Knights etc etc...???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure I follow. I am a Jedi Knight (well according to the census a few years ago). I, like many, put it down to annoy Tony Blair. Not aware of anybody who takes it seriously - I don't even like their films.

      Delete
    2. We are told by "progressive" (and legal?) sources that all religious beliefs must be respected. So....does that include eg respecting Jedi Knights so called believers or any idiot who has a cult following?

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…