The Danger Of Focusing On Facts Alone, Without Regard To Context And Interpretation

I discussion I had with a friend recently resulted in a difference of opinion on how one needs to approach facts.

A book well worth reading

I had questioned the motives behind the source of his information, pointing out that the source was guilty of the same things that were being criticised. My friend objected to my line of argument.

He said:

You remember the time you and I used to argue with [people] on FB? One unwritten rule then that we used to enforce, and call [them] out on, was whataboutery. [...] I take that as a universal principle. Every action should be judged on its own merit, not by comparison with someone else's action. [...] I would urge you to focus on the facts.

If someone points out that my roof is leaky, does it matter whether they are saying it because they are my well-wisher or whether they want to show me up?

The fact is still that my roof is leaky.

His was a pretty compelling argument on the face of it, but something didn't sit right with me. After a lot of thought, I composed this rejoinder using his own example of the leaky roof, and you can judge if it has any merit.

I have said more than once that "facts" by themselves are useless. They may be objectively true, but they are meaningless without context, and they are useless without interpretation. Context and interpretation are crucial to facts, and they are the aspects that are most prone to mischief. This is why it is naive to emphasise facts alone without regard to context and interpretation.

Let me illustrate with your own example.

I hear a rumour that your roof is leaking. You denounce it as malicious gossip. I persist with my investigation and determine that your roof is indeed leaking. I can now be triumphant in my insistence on verifying the facts regardless of the source of my information.

But the story doesn't end there. The fact that your roof is leaking is a useless piece of information in itself. What is the interpretation? What is the actionable intelligence from this "fact"? Well, upon further research, I find that roofer A was the one who built your roof, so my actionable intelligence is to be wary of roofer A, and not to hire him when building my house.

Now, let's say I instead choose to "follow the money". I try to find out who spread this rumour, and I discover that the source was roofer B. Aha! Roofer B has a motive in spreading such a rumour, because the resulting loss of reputation of roofer A will drive potential customers away from A towards his own business. Now people may argue that his motive doesn't matter, because facts are facts. Your roof leaks, and that's a fact that doesn't change regardless of who spread it.

But now, armed with this extra piece of information, I start another line of research. I find out how many roofs in the locality were built by roofer A and how many by B, and further, how many of each are leaking. My results now show that an equal percentage of roofs built by both A and B have leaked. There was a particularly severe thunderstorm last night, and many roofs have leaked in the neighbourhood. It's not fair to blame roofer A alone for leaky roofs, or to deny him business based on the "fact" that your roof leaked.

So when I announce, "Hey guys, guess what? Roofer B's roofs have also leaked!", that shouldn't be considered "whataboutery".

I thought this was an important debate on how to argue.