|
FWIW, here is how I view "facts" after 22 years of law practice. Most cases I work on don't involve disagreements about basic things that happened. There are some differences in the details and at the margins, but basically we know what happened: it's almost impossible to get around your paper trail. Where the disagreements come in is about what the facts mean -- which ones are significant, which chains of causation and reasoning are convincing, which POV is most reasonable.
Outside the legal process, though, there is no discipline on how to get and use facts. So there is an awful lot of cherrypicking, discounting of sources, and so on. The sources are themselves considerably less than totally reliable - back when I was working in the courthouse, I found that newspaper articles about hearings I was at were never more than 85% accurate.
That's why it's important to get your news from multiple sources.
|