Grappling with ‘alternative facts’

The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. I think we will all agree that these are facts. These facts cannot, as I am writing this, be challenged. Which is not to say that these are facts for all eternity. Some scientists have projected that a few billion years from now, the sun will have swallowed up the earth. Between then and now, who is to say that some entity will not somehow blow the sun up (or cause it to collapse)?

My wife is pregnant. It is factual to say that we are going to have a child. I pray that that stays a fact until what would be considered by all to be our child’s birthday.

With all that, I pray that I have adequately illustrated what I believe to be true: A fact’s factuality is coincidental in character. That is, a fact is fact when what we think it is and what can be perceived by practically everyone (perhaps the closest approximation of “objective reality” that we can possibly know) happen to align perfectly.

Thus, for a fact to be (personally) factual, one must have both knowledge and honesty. A nonalignment between what one thinks is fact and what can be collectively perceived can be due to ignorance. If one continues to assert what one thinks is fact despite this described nonalignment, then one might be deluded (involuntarily refusing to accept facts) or dishonest (voluntarily refusing to accept facts).

But one can try to control collective perception. One can also play with the coincidental character of facts to make what can be collectively perceived align with one’s beliefs.

Today, the former usually requires control over (social) media; the latter needs some kind of reality-warping power (or in the absence thereof, the technology to very quickly build or almost instantly destroy).

It is a fact that there are forces that can do the manipulations previously described. They have the power to falsify, create, and/or decimate. I believe that the most effective way to keep their power in check is through narratives that are either historical or speculative. Historical narratives can tell us what was fact, based on the most exhaustive evidence of known alignments of individual and collective perception. Speculative narratives can highlight what is not fact before forces make them appear to be fact. The publication and preservation of both can limit the capabilities of the manipulators of factuality.

But those who can piece together historical narratives and those who can craft speculative narratives can also collude with the manipulators of factuality. The former can be dishonest, or can deliberately ignore evidence of previous facts. The latter can construct a desirable fantasy that can appear rooted in what nearly all can perceive, but is actually based on the shared beliefs of a (much) smaller collective. In other words, both can be based on “alternative facts”—manufactured (i.e., nonexistent) coincidences that rely on making the beliefs of an exclusive collective appear to be tantamount to the alignment of a narrative-builder’s perspective and the nearly-all-inclusive
collective perspective.

I wrote this not because I am fond of overcomplicating things; I think many will actually think that all these paragraphs are pseudo-profundities by a pseudo-intellectual thumbing through a well-worn thesaurus. But in all honesty, I wrote this mainly because I have been trying to understand why I am so bothered by the term “alternative facts,” apart from how oxymoronic it seems. I think, as I was writing this, that I now understand my discomfort.

Perhaps you will agree that alternative facts are antidemocratic. They diminish or deny the value of certain perspectives. They make it seem that ignorance cannot be addressed through individual agency; only the persons that stand for (but also above) all can give knowledge. Nobody who says that he
or she knows what everyone is thinking is saying something factual. With so many leaders now espousing alternative
facts, I fear that soon it will be factual to say, “Democracy everywhere is dead.”

Unless many uphold that there are likely facts that no manipulator can alter, such as one I hold to be true based on conversations I have had throughout my life: Everybody who thinks wants to be heard. Anyone who cares about the communication of their thoughts should reject alternative facts, even if he or she is benefiting from them. The true democrat loves facts; he or she does not silence. He or she tries to listen to all.

Miguel Paolo Reyes, 29, is a university research associate at the Third World Studies Center, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines Diliman. He has done research on Philippine democracy and among his other research interests are various forms of deception.