A fact is something which is objectively true. Two plus two is four. The earth is roughly spherical. President Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, roughly two years after it became a state, to a mother born in Kansas. There are also false facts: things which are objectively false. Two plus two is seven. The earth was created roughly 6000 years ago. Liberalism is the same thing as communism and is also the same thing as fascism. The founders were a pack of gun toting anti-government, anti-tax, bible thumping activists.
An opinion is an attitude or belief about something which may be difficult to validate, or about which your opinion is really of no consequence to anybody but yourself. I think there is probably life elsewhere in the universe. Blue is a better color than Red. Fangio was a better driver than Schumacher. You can have opinions about facts. It's sad that our bodies wear out as we get older. It's annoying to pay taxes. An opinion is sort of a middle ground, between true and false facts. Opinions are sometimes validated or invalidated as we learn more about things.
Since there are a lot of things that are difficult to validate, a lot of people have opinions which may actually be facts or false facts. For example, you may think that Obama is a Kenyan terrorist. You are entitled to think anything you like of course, but if that's your belief, you are simply wrong, and acting on that belief in some way may be harmful. If you think that government tightening its belt during an economic downturn is an unquestioned necessity, you are simply wrong. It may be a little too complex for a lot of people to understand. So was the roundness of the earth before circumnavigations or satellite photos. But lots of people did understand that and knew the truth in the face of popular belief to the contrary.
A theory is an idea about the way some particular thing works in the universe. Theories can be true, false or opinion. The theory of the flat earth proved to be false. The theory of evolution proved to be true. The theory of universal gravitation is basically true, but it turns out to be more complicated than that. The theory that there is life elsewhere in the solar system remains possible but is as yet unproven one way or the other, so having an opinion either way is reasonable. The word "theory" is sometimes used to cast aspersions on a fact that the speaker is unhappy about. Not liking a theory has no bearing on whether it's true or false, nor does misunderstanding what the word means. It may have an impact on the politics around a theory, which may affect funding for research or even lead to ostracism. Thinking that something true is false or vice versa, is likely to lead you to make strategic errors.
17 October 2015
01 October 2015
Team Names
When I was growing up, the nearest division I college sports teams were the Stanford Indians. This was a commonplace sort of team name and seemed an entirely positive reference: the athletes were purporting to have the properties of native Americans: Strength, endurance, team spirit, aggressiveness, loyalty, etc. The college across the bay (which I later attended) were the Bears. More independent perhaps, but strong, aggressive, etc. The high school I went to were the "Pioneers": independent, far sighted. Beavers, Ducks, Huskies, Vikings, Mustangs, Matadors, Chargers, Cowboys. These were all meant to be positive references. Not really taken seriously as actually representational, just symbols to have on a flag.
In 1972, Stanford decided to drop the indian mascot. They struggled for a little while trying to find a replacement, temporarily using the team's primary color, Cardinal Red, and calling themselves the Stanford Cardinal. 40 years later, they've given up finding a new mascot and have stuck with the color. This made no sense to me at the time: the Indian mascot was an entirely positive and honorable allusion. Why should real indians complain?
One trouble is, the stereotypes about a few of these have them to be marauding bandits. There's some truth to it, but like many marauding bandits, they were driven to desperate measures by economic changes not of their own making*. Worse, there's an implied comparison to animals. But really, that's silly--actual cowboys, vikings, matadors, etc., are not complaining--nor should they. No insult is implied or intended.
The difference is that native Americans are still subject to real racial prejudice. The people who are being touchy about mascots named for them are trying to get attention for a real cause. It's not really the team name at all. They are trying to get better treatment for indians--on reservations, in impoverished sections of cities, and so forth. A lot of indians are trapped in a cycle of poverty that is very difficult to break out of. Horrible things have been done to them. Being touchy about team names is nothing more than a way of getting attention. A PR campaign.
There are, of course, lots of people who have confused the PR campaign for a real issue. That's what Stanford did when they changed their team name. This happens all the time. If all the teams changed their names, they would have "won", but it would deprive the native Americans of a real PR asset.
-----------------
* The Norse had a huge population boom that left a lot of people without land, so some of them went viking (it's a verb) to occupy someone elses land. At first scary, they assimilated very well. Angles, Saxons, Normans, Russians all have viking heritage. Indians were on the receiving end of this. The vikings made a colony there too, but were not as successful as they'd been in europe. 500 years later, a new set of immigrants came, but brought devastating disease with them, which made colonization much easier.
In 1972, Stanford decided to drop the indian mascot. They struggled for a little while trying to find a replacement, temporarily using the team's primary color, Cardinal Red, and calling themselves the Stanford Cardinal. 40 years later, they've given up finding a new mascot and have stuck with the color. This made no sense to me at the time: the Indian mascot was an entirely positive and honorable allusion. Why should real indians complain?
One trouble is, the stereotypes about a few of these have them to be marauding bandits. There's some truth to it, but like many marauding bandits, they were driven to desperate measures by economic changes not of their own making*. Worse, there's an implied comparison to animals. But really, that's silly--actual cowboys, vikings, matadors, etc., are not complaining--nor should they. No insult is implied or intended.
The difference is that native Americans are still subject to real racial prejudice. The people who are being touchy about mascots named for them are trying to get attention for a real cause. It's not really the team name at all. They are trying to get better treatment for indians--on reservations, in impoverished sections of cities, and so forth. A lot of indians are trapped in a cycle of poverty that is very difficult to break out of. Horrible things have been done to them. Being touchy about team names is nothing more than a way of getting attention. A PR campaign.
There are, of course, lots of people who have confused the PR campaign for a real issue. That's what Stanford did when they changed their team name. This happens all the time. If all the teams changed their names, they would have "won", but it would deprive the native Americans of a real PR asset.
-----------------
* The Norse had a huge population boom that left a lot of people without land, so some of them went viking (it's a verb) to occupy someone elses land. At first scary, they assimilated very well. Angles, Saxons, Normans, Russians all have viking heritage. Indians were on the receiving end of this. The vikings made a colony there too, but were not as successful as they'd been in europe. 500 years later, a new set of immigrants came, but brought devastating disease with them, which made colonization much easier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)