[dhh2106]

+1

It's hard to build up to complex solutions when we (society, broadly defined) seem unable to agree on the basic facts.

I don't know for sure if the past was better or worse when it came to reporting the truth. Given the limited number of news outlets, radio stations and tv stations historically, there were at least a limited set of reporting to agree on (independent of the accuracy of that reporting). This was probably very helpful in enabling more complex solutions.

[ahje]

100 years ago, mass media was still in it's infancy. They had printed media and occasional radio coverage and in many parts of the world media was extremely regulated. Now, we have a large number of different channels with much less regulation, and many more people with their own agendas.

Every complex solution will add an additional layer of complexity on top of everything, thereby making the problem worse. If society, as a whole, becomes so complex that the processes that keep it rolling are no longer transparent, then we'd end up in a situation where we can't see the forest for the trees.

[douglaswlance]

The problem is that both sides of any big issue think they have the "facts" and refuse to compromise or engage with the facts from the other side.

The list of objective facts regarding any major issue is short. The list of subjective facts is infinite. When anyone can blast the world with their subjective facts, the objective facts are lost in the noise.

[pjc50]

The deeper problem is "option consequences" - what is doing X likely to result in? It's hard to call statements about the future "facts", but we can't plan without them. QV the Brexit debate upthread.

[vkou]

If economics were a hard science, then we could focus on the objective facts.

It's not one, though.

[dsfyu404ed]

If the science was hard then then we'd just abuse statistics and anecdotes (like we do to promote gun control and deny climate change).