.
I was telling a close friend about a debate two people I knew were having and at one point, my friend made the following remark, “Well, the truth always lies somewhere in the middle.”
Well, no, that statement is a complete falsehood and one which irritates me every time I hear it. The truth does not ALWAYS lie in the middle. It could and usually does reside somewhere in between but not necessarily. Sometimes there is just right or wrong and the truth lies at either end.
President Obama’s fiscal policies are the right way to go.
Here the truth no doubt lies somewhere between yes and no. Time might show that the President has made the right decisions or, instead, that his policies have been a complete disaster. An issue such as this is definitely worthy of debate as both sides can make strong arguments in favor of their position.
Abortion.
Again, no right or wrong but less tangible in terms of how one supports his or her arguments. Matters of ethics are never cut and dry. The religious, emotional as well as the pragmatic side of this debate are all relevant.
Evolution.
This one’s easier in that right and wrong are more easily discernible. Creationist “science” is bogus and not worthy of true debate. The arguments are on a par with those of the Flat Earth Society. In the 150 years since Darwin proposed the Theory of Evolution, there has not been one – NOT ONE – scientific discovery or revelation which disproves the tenets of evolution and one is all that’s needed to banish a scientific thought to the waste bin. While scientists vigorously debate the mechanisms of evolution they do not debate its existence. So no, as passionately as creationists may argue their side, they are not 50% correct or even 1% correct. They’re just wrong.
And while I’m on this issue, let me note that evolution does not discount the existence of God. Actually, evolution says nothing of God or gods or even how life began. Evolutionary theory begins once life is established.
Climate Change.
I put this one on a par with the evolution ‘debate’. It’s dubious at best. Climate change deniers work hard to make it appear that there is a real debate going on within the scientific community as to whether or not man has had a significant impact on global warming. There is no such debate beyond the propaganda one hears from conservatives on Fox and elsewhere. The real debate, as with evolution, concerns itself with the mechanisms which drive global warming and not on whether it exists or on whether man has had a detrimental effect on climate change.
Unless one is a qualified scientist, all we can do is take a look at who is saying what. On one side we have the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) composed of the world’s leading scientists. We have the top scientific institutions from EVERY industrialized nation in the world all on the same page. We have the disciplines of climatology, geology, chemistry, physics, etc. all working independently and coming to basically the same conclusion: man is a major cause of global warming. We have a ton of peer-reviewed articles published in the leading scientific journals to back up their claims.
On the other side we have a handful of scientists, politicians and industry people who discount the case for global warming. A large number of the denier’s scientists have been shown to be on the Exxon payroll and Exxon itself has spent millions on lobbyists and propaganda campaigns to create the illusion of a scientific debate. There are no peer-reviewed scientific studies to which the Deniers can point to to back up their fraudulent claims. This is a faux debate.
So no, Virginia, the truth does not always lie somewhere in the middle. Sometimes the truth lives all by itself at one end of the ‘debate’ while the shysters and uninformed live at the other.
___
To receive email notifications of new posts from MarioPiperniDotCom, click on Subscribe
.
 |
@mario piperni
The truth lies in between not in the middle. Always in between. It is scientific and mathematical. Think of a line of points from 0 to 10.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The truth can lie on 0 or 1 or 10. So, if it is to the extreme left it is 0 or 10 it still lies between 0 and 10. It is mathematical. 0 is part of the
0-10 line.
Very well written article.
@mario piperni
Exactly, @mareio piperni the truth lies in between is what I say and if it is as you state “at one end of the ‘debate’” it is either 0 or 10.
But @mario piperni, why can’t the shysters and uninformed also be part of the truth end?
@mario piperni
You even state it yourself, the truth lies “between yes and no” which is what I have been claiming.
“President Obama’s fiscal policies are the right way to go.
Here the truth no doubt lies somewhere between yes and no. Time might show that the President has made the right decisions… .”
@mario piperni
Very powerful statement! Insightful! Clear! People need to read this:
“And while I’m on this issue, let me note that evolution does not discount the existence of God. Actually, evolution says nothing of God or gods or even how life began. Evolutionary theory begins once life is established.”
Well said, and beautifully written. You make so many good points with great examples. I agree with you on this, there is a long and invovled mathematical formula to prove this and I’m not going there. Fact is, “The truth lies in the middle” is an exceedingly common and very unfortunate meme. It’s interesting that it attaches itself so firmly in the minds of people discussing politics. It is the backbone, essentially of the Moderates.
People who say: “The truth lies somewhere in the middle” aren’t interested in the truth. They’re REALLY only interested in the MIDDLE.
Just as a footnote, my ex husband was fond of saying “There’s three stories here…yours, mine, and the truth which lies somewhere in the middle” I always hated that and would get so pissed. Try explaining the possibility of just one of us being correct, or neither of us, in the midst of a heated ‘discussion’ is futile. Same in politics. Meeting on middle ground generally produces marginal and wasteful results.
Of course I was always the one that was correct
I totaly disagree. Don’t have a formula or a meme dictionary but will believe what I have always believed mathematically. Which is that the point always lies between 0 and 10 in a 0-10 line.
Virgina, I’m not disagreeing with you. I am merely say that the truth doesn’t necessarily lie in the middle. One side can be totally wrong, while the other is correct. Or neither can be correct, or it does lie somewhere between point a and point b, but not necessarily in the middle.
You state:
“Meeting on middle ground generally produces marginal and wasteful results.”
This is the liberal Obama way of thinking and look at what you are saying.
You believe that of our President?
Abortion: I agree with you.
Evolution: I agree with you.
My point to @mario piperni was that it was in between not in the middle. And according to his statements above, he also believes it lies in between.
I will go to my grave thinking that it lies between points 0 and 10. So with that said if you disagree, I will agree to disagree.
@Virginia, I believe he said that the truth does not ALWAYS lie in the middle…I quote him @Mario “The truth does not ALWAYS lie in the middle. It could and usually does reside somewhere in between but not necessarily. Sometimes there is just right or wrong and the truth lies at either end.”
Virginia, relax, this is not a contest to find out who’s idea most closely agree with Mario’s. It is a discussion.I am simply stating my feeling as you are stating yours. I certainly hope that you don’t go to your grave anytime soon.
@MouthWideOpen yes, Obama has tried to meet in the middle. He has tried to no avail. Note that this last week, and specifically in recent days he is basically getting a bit tougher with the opposing side. I think he is beginning to realize that bi partisonship is not the way to go at this point.
I already agreed to disagree…
And I am relaxed. I have someone doing a pedicure as I type and the chair is vibrating and moving all kind of strange rolls up and down my spine.
@Virginia. I think I disagree with you but I can’t be sure. Don’t know what you’re arguing.
Obama’s fiscal policy: While I agree with you that the final chapter hasn’t been written, it’s my belief that when government competes with the private sector for equity, it limits overall economic growth.
When government spends money, it takes equity away from the private sector. (After all, the government cannot spend money it hasn’t already taken from somewhere else.) Diverting money from the private sector, takes jobs from the private sector.
Economic growth, i.e. profit, only comes from the private sector. Profit is the incentive that drives invention. As much as altruism is a great concept, our current live’s conveniences didn’t happen because it made someone feel good.
By competing for equity with the private sector, the government will actually interfer with, and probably limit, economic growth.
I would like to throw into the discussion a journalist’s point of view or perspective. When reporting, you go find facts, not opinions. Those are for the Op-Ed column. You rely on documented fact. Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite had it right. You tell the people what they need to know not just what they want to know. What we need are the facts. Just the facts. Each of us will then be able as adults to analyze and critique and make a choice as to whether or not we will base our opinions on fact or emotion. I have no tolerance for people who try to “debate” when it is obvious that they have not done their homework and are not in possession of any facts. They cannot document or support their opinions in reality.
When you view debate from the way one is taught in school, the debate team is always told to do their homework and garner the facts. No debate worthy of being called that will ever be devoid of facts and no debate team I have ever seen wins without the facts.
All of us, being human will have biases, prejudices, pre-conceived ideas, or will be just plain blind. We can overcome all this, however, when we stop and go do our homework and get grounded in the facts. When we do this, we become like Walter Cronkite who was trusted by all because he always looked for the facts and told it like it was without the embellishment of opinion. The one and only time he varied from that was when the useless deaths of too many young men he saw in Vietnam appalled him to the point of ending his broadcast with the one observation that we would not win in Vietnam. The people believed him because he had never led them astray before and they knew he always did his homework before speaking. I went into journalism because of him. His standards of factuality and truthfulness will be sorely missed.
@Virginia who writes: “why can’t the shysters and uninformed also be part of the truth end?”
Shysters, by the very definition of the word, would be at the untruthful end.
As for the uninformed, I could see them being at either end but you can bet your last dollar that many more would be at the wrong end. Educating oneself on the facts will usually steer you to the truth.
Climate Change: Let’s face it, nobody really knows why our weather is changing. It’s been changing for as long as there’s been evolution.
But, a wiser person than me once said, “Follow the money”. As much as Exxon has a motivation to keep pumping fossil fuels, GE has a mission to make billions by selling windmill turbines, which by the way are a very inefficient way to generate electricity, not to mention ugly. Who’s really pushing the client change issue? I think it’s people with vested interests in the profits. We’re just the pawns.
@Tommy
That’s a cynical outlook you’ve got there and while it might be correct in many instances, I think you’ve got it wrong on climate change.
Answer me this; how is it, as pointed out in the post, that the scientific community worldwide is in agreement? Are you suggesting a worldwide conspiracy put together by tens of thousands of top-notch scientists in every country in the world?
@Lantos
Can you name the scientists? Have you actually read their writings? Neither of us are operating from facts. I’m cynical because I don’t trust the source of the information, from either side. So I don’t think we should jump off a cliff because someone with more money than me says we should.
[...] I wrote in my last post, the truth does not always lie in the middle or even close to it. The birthers are insane and [...]
I haven’t commented on this thread as I have a much different and simpler stated take on this.
I’m always right. If you disagree with me, you are wrong.
Seriously. The fallacy (as I see it) in what you state is in how you assimilate and evaluate the information. There are few blacks and whites. On most any subject, there are many hues of gray.
Two people can assimilate and evaluate the information on many of these subjects and arrive at different conclusions. One needs to be prepared, if they are so inclined, to support and debate their position. Many times (and this is something I have trouble with and I suspect that more than one of you have the same difficulty) you simply need to respect the other person’s opinion and respectfully walk away, agreeing to disagree.
The fact that you (Mario) take the position of categorizing and labeling certain subjects that you feel are inarguable would seem to indicate your (or an) implacability in discussion or debate.
While this is a thoughtful (I’m impressed) and well written piece, I would tend to disagree with many of your premises. And with that said, would refer you to my second sentence in this comment.
@Bill
Reading my post and coming to the conclusion that I am stating in any way that I am always right, is to have misread the point I am making. In a nutshell, I am stating that not all debates/issues have a happy ‘truthfulness’ somewhere between the two extremes. Sometimes, the truth lies at either end. Sometimes, someone is wrong and the other is right. Sometimes.
I pointed out four examples. In two of them, the truth (or ‘rightness’, not sure what to call it) does lie in between. In the other two examples, there is a right or wrong. Evolution is either a truth or it is not. There is no rational in-between. God created humans or we’ve evolved. You cannot have both.
As for climate change, man is either a contributor to global warming or he is not. The Deniers claim that man is NOT a contributor to the phenomena and/or that global warming as a whole is a hoax. They are either right or wrong. They cannot be both.
I have looked at both sides of both issues and my conclusion (along with 99.99% of the scientific community) is that Creationists and Deniers are wrong. Now if you choose to interpret that last statement as me claiming that I am always right, whatever.
Not what I said at all. I said your comments indicated an “implacability” in discussion or debate. (Just double checked Webster’s to make certain of the meaning. “Intractable” might have been slightly better. But I think “implacable” is probably the better fit.)
I don’t want to engage in a contentious discussion over issues that (in my opinion) have no clear cut side, so I’ll try to be brief.
To state the absolute concerning creation and evolution as you have, there has to be a level of disregard for evangelical (?) thinking and belief. There are many “in between” discussions, the most reasonable one, as I would see it, that “God” used evolution as a tool of Creation. I personally do not believe this, but I understand how a person struggling to be faithful to their belief in God and their religious strictures would look at it in this way. In cases like this, I respect one’s religious beliefs and simply agree to disagree, with certain caveats. My position on that discussion is why try to dissuade someone from a faith, that if tempered with reasonable restraint, is not necessarily a bad one?
As for “climate change” again, I think the issue and debate centers around mankind’s contribution. Many see it as negligible and the warming and cooling cycles of the Earth as more natural than anything else. “Global Warming” as a statement is more often than not taken to mean mankind is destroying the Earth and something needs to be done. This is a perfect example of what I’m saying. Many people have looked at the exact same data and reached different conclusions. And regardless what you assert, there is no precise or exact science to prove or refute either position. One thing is certain. I think many more people on the alarmist side have used it to enrich themselves than on the other. Another discussion.
Also, “99.9%” is a misleading statistic. Possibly a large segment of the “scientific” community would be correct re: Creation and Evolution. I think substantially less on mankind’s impact on Global Warming. But I would think it would be better to clarify the “scientific community” aspect as that percentage would drop precipitously when applied to people as a whole.
Good discussion. Good points. I “respect” yours, though I disagree in part. I trust you extend the same courtesy to me.
(Nostalgically listening to Billy Mayes hawking “Scratch Fix It” as I write. Hard to believe.)
Read my post again. I made it clear that evolutionary theory does not speak of God.
And it’s not about dissuading anyone from believing what they want. It’s about not raising a bunch of idiots. Creationists wish to have creation taught as science in schools. They’ve conveniently changed the name to “intelligent design”. Same garbage. There’s a battle going on out there and it’s imperative that these people be called out for spreading nonsense and wanting it forced down the throats of your children. Everyone should be concerned.