[arethuza]

Ideally I'd expect politicians to pick and choose "facts" that suit there arguments (or on a rare occasion actually have their arguments informed by data) and to ideally reference the sources so they can be checked by anyone who cares.

Is that an "elite" approach then?

Of course, what I describe above is an ideal - politics is a mucky business and the essence of a democracy is essentially that we get to choose between the liars. However, what I do have difficulty with is the idea that reasoning from actual factual data or scientific hypotheses has no role in politics.

[ThomPete]

But thats the problem. You can have two argument which are both true but politically only one of them can win. This is why we argue.

Not because we are uniformed but because our perspectives are different and our perspectives are different because it affects us differently.

And so the real danger here is to go along with this romantic notion that facts used to be more meaningful when in fact it was only that perspectives were more aligned than they are today.

[croon]

> You can have two argument which are both true but politically only one of them can win.

No you can't. This is why we are living in "post-truth". Meaning it's not truth anymore.

You are right in that either one can win, but only one can be true.

[jerf]

"You are right in that either one can win, but only one can be true."

Of course both sides can put forth true arguments in a political debate. I'm having a hard time coming up with a real world example, both because I don't want to push buttons that force you down a knee-jerk path on the button I push when I don't really care about it, and because we're really not used to seeing honest debates in the political arena.

But when society faces a decision A or B, each side can completely honestly tout the benefits of their decision and the costs of the other decision, both of which will exist. And God Almighty could come down from on high and hand us the exact, true, and full consequences of each decision, and those who benefit from one decision can completely honestly argue in its favor while those who may not benefit could completely honestly argue against it, which could be completely different sets of people for each decision. (There's almost never a decision that benefits everybody, even before we get into questions like relative amounts of benefit, or how society as a whole benefits.)

An argument containing elements of truth, or even somehow consisting entirely of truth, does not make it correct, because it still won't be the complete truth, which may well contain a superior argument for a different decision in it. But we don't have access to complete truth.

[croon]

Sure, but those are then by definition not opposing arguments. They are opposing stances on some political issue, sure, but on the facts side one party puts more value in one variable where the other party values another.

I was stating that two opposing arguments can't both be true, because then there is no truth.

[ThomPete]

There is no truth but thats not really relevant. We are debating whether politics today is less fact based than it used to be and which is the reason we see claims of "post-truth".

We are not talking about some rhetorical analysis of language and I never meant it in that sense which the context of this discussion should have made clear. If not then I am remedying that now.

[ThomPete]

no thats not why people claim we are living in post-truth. They claim that because they claim that truth doesn't matter anymore but truth never mattered in politics and people aren't discarding truth.

I would urge you to give me examples in politics which can't have two different political outcomes both potentially true.

[croon]

> I would urge you to give me examples in politics which can't have two different political outcomes both potentially true.

Climate change.

[ThomPete]

What about it?