I had a lengthy political discussion with a hardline right-wing co-worker. I would never willingly enter into this kind of thing, but it just happened. So, we are talking, and, at some point, I realized he was not attacking my ideas but the facts upon which they are based. Every fact I sited had been manipulated to make my side come out smelling like a rose. Fortunately for him, the facts he sited were beyond reproach.

They were delivered directly to him by George W. Bush and Jesus Christ who together carved them into stone tablets after saving the earth from liberals, gays, atheists, and brown people. The information I cited to show that the budget deficit, with little exception, shrunk under democratic administrations and grew under republican ones could easily be manipulated while his citation of the GDP was the absolute number. No manipulation of that number would be possible! The GDP is a number with international reach. Other capitalist nations would never agree to making these numbers appear favorable so as to maintain the power structures that in fact keep them in power! However, the federal deficit numbers are easy to manipulate. That is merely a nationwide conspiracy rather than an international one.

What this discussion made clear to me is that the accuracy of anyones facts can be called into question. I can say that any fact may have been manipulated to favor the cause being supported by it—and I would certainly be right in more cases than I’d like to imagine. However, the same holds true to these facts we use to support our own arguments. How sure are we of the accuracy of facts we have not witnessed or obtained first hand? Now, look carefully at that question. If the answer is without hesitation that you are 100% or even 90% certain, you may be interpreting the question as, “How much conviction can we hold that the facts which support our beliefs are true?” My co-worker shows unrelenting conviction that everything he believes is true, but that does not make it so.

There were a few instances in which he was experienced in ways that gave him an inside track. We discussed wiretapping. He claimed there would be no way for a call to be tracked that was not connected to a known terrorist. Besides, they still have to obtain a warrant to do anything. They will have to show documentation that the call was made to a known terrorist to get the warrant. Nevermind they are essentially policing themselves. But wait! Congress is overseeing. Yes, our highly paid congressman do little other than review every phone call tapped to be sure it met the stringent requirements. There is no way any agency could act outside these restrictions. He knows how the equipment works! He has done this himself. The assumptions here being that the equipment is still the same as it was, that every piece of the equipment operates the same way, and that everyone is trained to do this in the same way he was. If they wanted to do some listening outside the boundaries, would they just pick anyone in the military to do it? Would they allow everyone in the military to know they are doing this? I believe they would pick only the most trusted personnel to perform such a risky task. Is it likely that my co-worker would have been part of this “inner circle?”

I’m not really much of a conspiracy theorist, but all these things seem as plausible to me as a national conspiracy to make liberals look more financially conservative than the conservatives. I’m not saying that do or did happen but that they are no less likely. I was even willing to admit there could be problems with my information. I’m getting it all secondhand so anything could have happened between the source and myself, right? That was not the case for his information.

Now, since the accuracy of any fact is suspect, how do we decide which facts to believe? The only answer I really have right now is that we believe whatever we want to believe. Sure, it’s cliche, but it seems to be true. I don’t even question facts which support my beliefs. How hard can anyone really search for something to deny his own beliefs unless he really doesn’t want to believe them. Why would I look for information to debunk my beliefs if I am comfortable with them? Yet, whenever I hear information that supports the other side, I begin looking for holes. We like to think our opinions are informed and rational, but they are really supported only by the information we choose to see. We ignore or explain away the rest. Our information is justification for our beliefs rather than basis for it. I guess that’s the only way.