William Davies: "Everything Is War And Nothing Is True"

I've got the flu, and can't really think clearly, but part of this look interesting, e.g.:

In civil society, the facts provided by economists, statisticians, reporters and academic scientists have a peace-building quality to the extent that they provide a common reality that can be agreed upon. The ideal of independent expertise, which cannot be swayed by money or power, has been crucial in allowing political opponents to nevertheless agree on certain basic features of reality. Facts remove questions of truth from the domain of politics.

This doesn't really make much sense given that facts and truth are basically the same thing--truth is the linguistic analog of facts. But ignoring that: the claims above seem plausible...though I'd gripe one of my standard gripes: this is yet another reason why it's so wrong / destructive for the left to control/manipulate experts--scientists in particular. And, of course, it does. All the softer sciences are made up mostly of progressives, and they tend to bring their conclusions into line with progressive preferences. Econ seems to be something of a holdout--but it's "harder," too. And the humanities are almost completely in the thrall of progressivism--and progressives have begun citing humanists as experts (" "). Women's and gender studies scholars, for example, are cited as experts in public debates over e.g. sexual assault, transgenderism, and "toxic" masculinity. (Wow the word 'toxic' sure has become repulsive...) Even though humanities scholars probably shouldn't be cited as experts on anything other than historical questions like "When was Hamlet written?" and "Who most influenced Cervantes?" Humanists don't so much discover truths (or facts) as offer interpretations. And many humanists explicitly reject the idea of a separation between scholarship and politics. The people cited by progressives as experts are, often, basically leftist activists who make whatever arguments they can think of to support leftist conclusions. This is a corruption of the process, and conservatives have been onto it for years. Everybody but progressives seems to understand what's going on here. Does anyone--even those of us who acknowledge that it could and ought to be--think that e.g. sociology is outputting apolitical conclusions? Even psychology and climatology--which are supposed to be natural sciences rather than social ones--are affected. 

   In short, the refs are cheating, and cheating very consistently for one side. And the other side knows it. So if Davies is right, and the neutrality of experts--including journalists!--are supposed to be doing something that promotes domestic tranquility...but, instead, they're cheating...well...that's the sort of thing that cannot but stoke anger and resentment on the side that's getting the shaft.

   Here's more:

Many of the anxieties surrounding “post-truth” and “fake news” are really symptoms of a public sphere that moves too quickly, with too great a volume of information, to the point where we either trust our instincts or latch on to others’. There’s a reason Twitter invites users to “follow” one another, a metaphor that implies that amid a deluge of data, truth is ultimately determined by leadership.

   Well, truth isn't...but we know what he means; no sense quibbling. I'm not sure about his point there, but it seemed to me to be worth highlighting for consideration.