Facts and Science – or REALITY
Many of my own family, and friends, and even fellow Christians, are quite sure that they are more informed and enlightened than us old codgers who are stuck in the mud conservatives. They believe they are more educated, and more open minded, more willing to acknowledge what is wrong with our world today, and America in particular. And why not? They have social media and mainstream media, as well as their like-minded peers which inundate them with information on a daily, no momentary basis. Some even have some college education, a few advanced degrees. They are big on appealing to “science” and “facts”, and into fact checking their ideological opponents. Many are quite superior when it comes to current trends or trendy information. They know the latest hip jargon, all about the current pop-culture icons, the movies and various drama series, video games, music sensations, and the list goes on. They tend to be current on the latest technology especially related to i-phones, and for some even computers, and how to use them. They are very facile at finding anything they want to know about on the internet, or from Google or Siri, or Alexa. Hence, compared to their elders of previous generations, and previous cultures, they are clearly superior in any way that really matters – to them.
So, what’s new?
Old “conservatives” need to admit to their inferior old-fashioned outmoded beliefs and ways, and get out of the way of progress. Really?
One thing is for sure, change is inevitable and progress can and should be made in any culture or society. Furthermore, realistically and pragmatically speaking, changes made in the name of progress need to be based on facts and science, not just emotional movements and popular social trends and the like. But, therein lies the rub today. First, what is going on in our culture in the name of progressive change, is in reality largely driven by emotion inspired by social trends. However, the claim is made that such emotional movements and current social trends are based on the facts, and science. Ironically, this is a claim that is being made on every side of the issue.
It is the same claim that is used by Atheists to refute all kinds of Theism, as well as by Theists, religionists, and Christians to refute Atheists as well as each other’s truth claims. It is being used today, in 2020, on both sides of the raging debate about the extreme measures being taken by government in the name of public safety from the COVID pandemic. It is being used in the war that is exploding between what is commonly referred to as the Liberal Left, and the Conservative Right in the name of social justice, fighting systemic institutional racism.
“Facts”, “Science” – what do these words even mean now? They have become meaningless. One side tells us that based on the facts, and settled science, blacks are being systematically discriminated against every day by those in authority – the “pigs”. They cite scientific data – statistics – such as there are disproportionately more blacks arrested annually than whites, and there are more blacks at the poverty level than whites, and there are disproportionately more blacks infected by and dying from COVID than whites, etc.. Now we have a list of black victims of police brutality, the most notorious lately being George Floyd.
I will use slightly different terminology, since such terms have become virtually meaningless. I use the word “reality” to refer to that which is real, or accurately portrays that which is real. This assumes that there is absolute reality, which exists in itself independent of anyone’s perceptions or interpretations of observed phenomenon. I will use “reality-based” to refer to that which is consistent with objective evidence and reason. While it may not be reasonable to maintain that any given reality can be proven, it is reasonable to assume and maintain that what is real, or reality, will be supported by the evidence.
So, the first question, or issue, is what is the evidence? In courts of law verdicts and judgements are supposed to be reached based on the evidence. That includes testimony of witnesses (especially eyewitnesses) and or experts, physical forensic evidence (fingerprints, DNA, a murder weapon, etc.), and circumstantial evidence (the weakest form). However, here-in lies the first potential problem. Evidence can be tampered with, or withheld, or even artificially created. Thus, the first task is to determine what all the relevant or necessary evidence is and discern between that which is true and relevant and that which is not.
The next issue, which is probably the biggest challenge, is to accurately interpret the evidence presented as true and relevant. Invariably the prosecution has a different interpretation than does the defense, or there will be no trial. In our American system of justice, it is supposed to be an impartial jury, or judge, which will objectively determine which interpretation is accurate and truthful, and which is not. This decision requires critical thinking and logic, weighing both sides of the arguments presented, and perhaps most importantly integrity – truthfulness and an uncompromising commitment to finding the truth of the matter – for what could be called “justice”, to be done.
However, it is all an exercise in futility at best, without the presumption of objective reality or objective truth – something actually happened in reality, irrespective of any kind of perceptions, and the objective is to find out and prove what that real event was and how it actually in reality happened – i.e. who did what and how they did it, perhaps even why they did it. Of course, this much is obvious, a given, and to even state it seems superfluous. However, in a world in which the judges and juries do not necessarily embrace such concepts as absolute truth or absolute reality or are not primarily concerned with trying to determine what it is, justice itself will never be realized as a reality experientially. The pursuit of justice, and indeed the very concept of “justice”, will become whatever those in pursuit of it will define it to be. The evidence will become inconsequential except as it can be interpreted and selectively used to accomplish some preconceived objectives – such as social change.
Similarly in “science”, without an uncompromising commitment to finding the absolute truth and absolute realities, evidence is selectively considered and interpreted to support conclusions which are predetermined by a priori assumptions and presuppositions. Examples of this are the great debates about origins, Evolution vs. Scientific Creationism, or Anthropogenic Climate Change (Global Warming) vs. the scientific arguments refuting such claims (and they are substantial, once politics is removed from the equations).
When it comes to current events, and recent historic events, related to cultural and social developments, the evidence is readily available, but also very amenable to a variety of interpretations. As in science, the same observational factual data which is used to support the claims of the very politically motivated social justice warriors, is the very evidence used to refute their narrative about systemic racism especially against blacks. In some cases (not all), the evidence presented as facts often are facts, but how they are interpreted involve logic errors, distortions of the realities, and outright falsehoods.
For example, evidence presented as facts to support the contention that the police are racists discriminating against blacks are the factual statistics:
- blacks are disproportionally represented in arrest/conviction statistics: 13% of the population account for 50% of murder convictions and 60% of convictions for other crimes. These vary significantly from one area of the country to another, but the percentage of black and other minority convictions are always significantly higher than their demographic representation.
This same statistic is also cited to support the opposite interpretation, that there is a much higher crime rate among blacks, committed by blacks, than by whites. The reality is that this only represents those that are actually caught and tried in the courts and found guilty of the crimes for which they were apprehended. It is a well-known fact attested to by many living in those black communities that there is far more crime, mostly black on black, going on every day than is ever apprehended which is certainly not reported. Recent statistics coming from Chicago bear out the fact that even such crimes as murder are rampant on a daily basis in those communities. No such alarming statistics are reported in white communities, or involving whites, probably because such crimes are not being committed by the majority white class – certainly not white on black crimes.
- Between 2017-2020 2155 people were killed by police – over half were black: 1398 were white and 757 black.
This is used as evidence to support the claim that that there is systemic racism in the nations police forces, such that police are killing people because they are black, and not killing others because they are white. However, this interpretation is based on certain underlying assumptions:
- The killings of blacks were not justified nor a result of the offender’s resistant or threatening behavior, any more than that of the whites;
- The killings of the blacks were because of racial discrimination as the primary factor.
One of the biggest problems with such an interpretation is prima facia evidence itself. Those cases where such shootings occurred have become the centerpiece of incriminating evidence used to incite violent protests and destructive, in some cases fatal demonstrations featuring rioting, looting, pillaging and burning. Tragically, the actual targets of such savage attacks, the innocent victims, turned out to be mostly blacks. However, in virtually every case, from Trevon Martin to Michael Bennet to George Floyd, the individuals touted as victims of racist police abuse of power, were caught committing a crime. Most had criminal records, several were under the influence of drugs, all were resisting legal arrests, most were engaging in threatening behavior. Any and all of these cases justified the use of force, and in some cases lethal use of force, when seen from the arresting law enforcement persons perspective. To even suggest, let alone insist, that such behavior by a person of another race, including a white person, would not have been met with a very similar or the same reaction, is to do nothing more than make unreasonable allegations without a shred of evidence to support it. In fact, there were more than twice the number of whites killed by police, probably because they also resisted arrests and displayed similar threatening behavior. But there just aren’t as many proportionally who are as possessed of the same defiant attitudes, or who may have been more realistic in their assessment of the situation (i.e. fear), than their black counterparts. Of course, to those on the liberal left, to even entertain such rational considerations is itself “racists”.
If in fact there were quite innocent victims, law abiding citizens, who were doing what most of us know is the right thing to do, who did the only smart thing to do even when treated badly by police (which I personally have also experienced on several occasions), which were then arrested, treated abusively, or even killed by the police – wouldn’t that be headline news on all the media outlets for days, months, weeks and more? Such would clearly be grounds for the charge of racism, and social injustice. Where is there one such example? Where is there actually one case of the kind of systemic racism and racially motivated police brutality as is being touted by the MSM, the Democrat left, and the Black Lives Matter movement? If George Floyd is the posterchild for such a movement, is this not rationally speaking actually profound evidence against the claims of the movement? It is a little like claiming that the accused is guilty of murdering the victim because the murder weapon was found in the hand of the victim. Once the facts are all known and objectively considered, the actual evidence seems to better support a verdict of suicide by police on the part of Floyd, or Michael Brown, than a case of a racist cop just murdering a helpless innocent black victim. Floyd was a big muscular man, under the influence of illegal substances, with a criminal record and a history known personally to the arresting officer. He was resisting arrest, and his protestations about not being able to breathe were made while standing up, not as a result of the knee on his neck once he was subdued (although, according to the official autopsy, the drugs and his heart condition may have caused the difficulty breathing, as well as his ultimate death).
This is not to say that Derek Chauvin used good judgment from the perspective of an uninvolved, dispassionate observer. It is not to say that he did not have some kind of animus against Floyd, with whom he had apparently had a previous encounter, or encounters. It is not even to say for sure that Chauvin did not have some kind of privately secretly held racists attitudes – that is not and cannot be known from any of the evidence presented. It is very likely that he felt threatened by Floyd’s behavior, especially knowing his criminal record, and recognizing that Floyd was under the influence of drugs, which often makes big men like Floyd much more dangerous. It is likely he was very angry and may have disliked Floyd very much – as most law enforcement officers likely feel some hostility toward the potentially dangerous offenders they encounter. However, realistically speaking, it is not very reasonable to contend that even a racist attitude would have made much difference in this case, such that if it was a white man all else being equal, that Chauvin would have done anything differently. First, if he actually intended to kill Floyd, why bother to take him down and hold him down the way he did – why not just do and get it over with, use lethal force on his neck and just break it. Why not just another shooting? Some point to the movement of his knee, which they interpret as an attempt to apply more force, but is that logical? To move his knee around he had to reduce the pressure not continue to apply it, which seems to more likely suggest trying to avoid causing death by applying too much pressure. This is a prime example of looking at some of the same evidence and interpreting it differently. The inflammatory accusations mostly only consider parts of the available evidence, ignoring or refuting the rest, and deriving conclusions that are consistent with their presuppositions, a priori assumptions, and personal as well as collective biases. At the same time they are making accusations that their adversaries who reach very different conclusions, are doing what they themselves are in fact guilty of. Hence, the charge, race-based police brutality protected by the institutionalized systemic racism of the system. Never mind that it was a “system” consisting of black police chief Medaria Arradondo, a Democrat Mayor Jacob Frey, and a predominantly Democrat city council – all openly sympathetic to their cause. Of course, such observations and the audacity to suggest such politically incorrect interpretations of the factual evidence may incur and invite a modern version of lynching from the left, with probably few defenders even on the professing conservative right.
It is not a “reality” in any sense of the word that facts can be so construed, or the evidence so interpreted, as to fit any narrative, or any social or political agenda, such as what we are witnessing in our world, in our American society today.
However, there is considerable evidence in the statistics which have been collected, such as reported in the Washington Post, June 10, 2020 article entitled “There’s overwhelming evidence that the criminal justice system is racist.” Reporter Radley Balko cites an impressive number of studies done with damning statistics to support his contention that racism is in fact rampant in our system of law enforcement and justice. And indeed, such information appears to be incriminating. Beginning with the testimony of conservative black republican senator Tim Scott that he has been stopped by police 7 times in one year, ostensibly just because he was black driving a new car. It is assumed that Scott was abiding by the law, not speeding or failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign (though he does admit he was speeding twice), as has happened to many if not most of us at some time or another – but we don’t know that (though I prefer to believe him). There was a period in my life in the 1970s when I was not only stopped but ticketed 5 times in one month, which I could cite as evidence of police bias against young white men (which along with the kind of car I was driving, may have played a role in some instances, but the reality is that in most of those instances I was in violation of traffic laws, or my behavior was suspicious).
However, Scott’s testimony, combined with the other statistics does certainly suggest there is some profiling going on – somewhat like the police in Southern California profiling young male drivers in certain kinds of cars. Of course, the reality is that most crimes, especially traffic and drug violations, were being committed by young white men in certain kinds and colors of cars, in those rural areas in which I lived. In the Washington DC area where Scott was apprehended the population is predominantly minorities (as of 2019-2020), with blacks (50%) outnumbering whites (38%). The crime statistics in that area are very high, and most of the offenders are in fact minorities and in particular blacks (to say that a higher number of police actions involving blacks than whites is disproportionate based on the national demographic of only 13% blacks, would be completely fallacious and deceptive). There are undoubtedly far too many drug dealers and pimps in the DC area just as there are in most of the large metropolitan areas in the country. Such criminals are more likely than not the drivers of new expensive cars, since most of the minority residents are predominantly poor, and cannot afford the newer makes and models like the Scott drives. Thus, while it is cast as profiling, it is in fact reality-based logic to suspect that a black person in such an automobile may well be either one of those profiting from illicit illegal activity, or a case of car theft. Thus, like the cops in Southern California who apprehended me because I fit the profile, and in one instance searched my car for drugs or contraband, DC cops are trying to do their job of getting such criminals off the streets – exactly what most citizens want them to be doing, and assume they are being paid to do.
The liberal left has tried to cast “profiling” as an evil practice involving nothing more than discrimination. In fact, it is a very necessary part of good police work. This same tactic is being used in the battle over how the border patrol enforces our laws protecting us from illegal immigration, and in particular criminals and terrorists entering our country. There again the reality is that the Israelis have proven that such profiling is the most potent weapon at their disposal when it comes to apprehending terrorists attempting to cross their border – much more so than metal detectors.
What we don’t have reported statistics on is how many stops and arrests are made on whites which involve the same kind of profiling. A white man, with long hair, looking a lot like a druggie, is probably much more likely to be stopped and their car searched, than a white man with short hair or a woman with long hair. The kind and color of a car that person is driving also increases the likelihood of attracting the attention of law enforcement, as is a well-known reality. This is not just based on discriminatory bias but based on real-world experience, statistically verifiable. Similar to being a young dark skinned male with a beard trying to enter the US from Somalia, as opposed to a fair skinned elderly woman from France, profiling is not about racial or religious discrimination as much as it is about being conscientiously realistic with respect to protecting our citizens by judiciously carrying out their duties of enforcing our laws. While it is certainly an annoying inconvenience to anyone to be occasionally apprehended by such officers, especially when it is just because you fit a certain profile (such as a black man in a new expensive car, or a young white man with long hair), one must weigh this against the prospect of victims of crimes being committed by the type of individual which make up the profile – such as the drug dealers and pimps, gang members, and car thieves. We have already seen what has happened in those areas where effective policing has been curtailed, with crime statistics escalating, meaning the number of victims increasing exponentially.
Another reality is that criminals don’t usually commit their crimes in the presence of a cop. They get rid of their drugs or guns when they see the cop coming. Without aggressive police work, using such tactics as profiling, apprehension of such criminals with the necessary evidence to result in a conviction and incarceration or execution, becomes rare and unlikely. Meanwhile, the bodies of innocent victims of their crimes keep piling up. Most unfortunately, it is always those very minorities, especially predominantly the blacks in the hood as in DC, which are by far the most victimized – black on black crime. This is ironic inasmuch as those very minorities which the liberal left are claiming to save and champion by their supposed social justice warfare against the supposed systemic racism, especially in law enforcement, are the primary victims of the results of their noble but counterproductive accomplishments. While profiling leads to what looks like racial discrimination, it is also what leads to higher arrest and conviction rates of actual criminals, which is what is necessary to protect countless potential victims – especially among the minorities.
But wait – those higher arrest rates, and conviction and execution of justice rates, are also cited as evidence of nothing more than systemic racism, social injustice. This certainly is one way of interpreting the evidence. However, such an interpretation involves and in fact requires certain other prerequisite assumptions. First one has to assume that the arrests were unwarranted, false arrests on false premises – those arrested were innocent of any crimes. Second one has to assume that the trials leading to convictions were mostly all cases of miscarriage of justice in which the defendants were actually innocent of the crimes of which they were convicted – a complete and total failure of our judicial system on a large scale. Hence the outcry for tearing down the present system in our country in the name of social justice. This is what the masses in our country which are protesting and rioting or sympathizing with those who are, endorsing or condoning the Black Lives Matter movement, have been led to believe (or in the case of the corrupt left-wing Democrat leaders and politicians, pretend to believe). If this is true, as they claim, then they are right. We need to tear down our present system, to replace it with a more fair and equitable system – hence, “defund the police”. The first question is whether such an interpretation of the evidence is accurate, reality-based.
The alternative interpretation of such statistical data is that in fact those arrested, or at least most of those arrested, did in fact commit a crime for which they were apprehended and arrested. As it turns out, in the highly touted cases of police shootings of blacks, none of the shooting victims were cases of completely innocent law-abiding citizens just minding their own business. They all disobeyed police orders, and almost all were involved in some kind of illegal activity for which they were apprehended. Most resisted arrest, and displayed threatening behavior of some kind, which provoked the response of the police to use lethal force, in the face of threats on their own lives. When it comes to convicted and incarcerated criminals, who does not know that virtually all of them deny guilt and profess innocence? But if our system of justice, the best the world has ever known, is not capable of bringing justice, then what will?
This is not to ignore or deny the fact that there are abuses of the system. There are corrupt police, corrupt lawyers, corrupt prosecutors, corrupt judges, and corrupted or corruptible juries. For that reason we have an adversarial system, with courts of appeals, which sometimes overturn verdicts, or declare mistrials. Certainly, racial prejudice does still exist in the hearts of some men, and that does and will always affect the execution of justice. Probably there is no more high-profile case than the trial of O.J. Simpson, in which racial bias was on display for all to see, and certainly no one can claim that the verdict provided evidence of a systemic racism against blacks (though it may be cited as evidence of the reverse).
However, what is abundantly clear to any rational clear thinking person is that the current approach being taken to ostensibly correct this problem of racial attitudes and biases, by rioting and burning and looting, essentially outright anarchy, will do nothing to correct or change the problems that still do exist, except to make it orders of magnitude worse. Where there was hatred or discriminatory attitudes based largely on ignorance, and mistaken generalizations about minorities, now there is actual reason based on observed behaviors as seen almost daily by everyone on TV substantiating beliefs in stereotypes, which become generalized to whole populations. What this social justice Black Lives Matter movement is actually accomplishing is the exact opposite of what they profess to be their objective. It is hard to conceive of a more effective way of promoting and perpetuating racist attitudes, and thereby escalating the amount of racially motivated abuses of the system, than the tactics being used now, with the blessing of the liberal left politicians, who it turns out are major contributors to the problem. It is almost entirely in the Democrat controlled jurisdictions, that this civil unrest is being allowed to occur, and in some cases like Portland, to escalate completely out of control. Ironically, it is also in those same areas, many if not most with black Democrat politicians in control (Mayors, Chief of Police, City Councils), where the abuses are still going on, producing the violent unrest. Yet, those same leaders are claiming to be the solution to the problems, problems which they are primarily responsible for creating or allowing to develop. What is most appalling is that they are trying to use the anarchy they have produced to bring about such utopian change. You could never make this up.
One of the problematic statistics which is being completely ignored, but seems to contradict their claims with respect to how they interpret the statistical data, is as follows: Black or Hispanic officers are much more likely to shoot unarmed black men than are white officers. What does this tell us? Are Blacks and Hispanic officers more racially biased against fellow minorities than white police officers? Is it racial bias that motivates their shooting, or are there other factors involved? Isn’t the proposed solution to such abuses of white power to have more minority police officers? But won’t that then produce more police shootings of such minorities?
Perhaps a more reasonable explanation of this factual evidence comes from a more realistic understanding of what goes on in the mind of the police officer when he/she decides to shoot. Could it be that rather than thinking mostly about the suspects race or color, that decision might be more affected by other considerations. Given the recent development of a climate of hostility toward police with respect to their use of lethal force, of which every officer must be acutely aware, there is a powerful incentive to avoid use of force, which is also a matter of their training. However, self-preservation is also a powerful motivating factor. In light of the recent trends involving resistant and defiant behavior of suspects being apprehended, too often resulting in the death of the officer, such a consideration must override the others in the instant of time in which they have to make such a decision. For the officer, an instant of hesitation is often lethal for the officer who fails to act decisively, and there is no second chance, no redo to get it right.
Another consideration has to be, and certainly should be, getting the job done. The job to which they have committed themselves, is to uphold the law and protect the innocent – not so much to protect the violators of the law, the suspected offenders. If they have predetermined that they will never use lethal force to apprehend any suspect who defies and resists their authority, they not only endanger themselves but handicap themselves with respect to getting the job done. As criminals learn that all they have to do is resist, because the officer is afraid to use what may be lethal force against them, enforcement of the law and protection of the innocent victims will become a virtual impossibility. No one knows this better than the cop trying to do his job. Why would a reasonable person, take the job of being a law enforcement officer, knowing they will be risking their life to do something they aren’t really able, or allowed to do, without risking major negative consequences, go ahead and try to do it anyway?
So, why would a black cop tend to shoot a black suspect? How about to perform their duty to uphold the law, as opposed to just letting the suspect get away scot free? How about because they are serious about protecting the innocent – such as maybe family members and friends back in the hood where they grew up? How about to protect themselves from becoming another statistic of officers killed in the line of duty? Is this about police brutality, abuse of power, or racial bias?
On the other hand, one might assume that these black police officers know the crime statistics, that black men are more likely to commit the crimes, and when apprehended are more dangerous than the average white man. He/she may well know this from their own personal experience in the neighborhoods in which they grew up, where drugs were being sold on a nearby street corner, and gangs were frequently engaged in criminal activity including homicide and drive-by shootings. Such an individual doesn’t need statistical data reported by left leaning news sources to know the realities of the situation. They know firsthand that it isn’t just about racism, white against blacks. Thus, they are often probably more aware of the danger involved in such confrontations with people of their own race and color, than when dealing with a white suspect, or more aware than the white cop in the same situation. They may also be more intensely motivated to get those criminals off the streets, especially in those neighborhoods they are committed to protecting – it may be very personal for them. This is REALITY, not theory, not propaganda, not just politics.
To suggest that such shooting are racially motivated is not only outlandishly foolish, but inexcusably slanderous against these courageous men and women who put their lives on the line to defend and protect the rest of us. However, by the same rational, the same applies to the white protectors and defenders who are so unfortunate as to become involved in such shootings – probably not what they set out to do when they left home in the morning. It is a shame that those who love to play Monday night quarterback, sitting in their secure sheltered perches, sit in judgment on our men and women of valor, judging them based on the unrealistic utopian ideals of those who are mostly motivated by their lust for power, that they don’t themselves have to deal with the criminals they are so determined to enable and defend. And now, they want to use what they have in large measure created, to overthrow the system itself.
All of this comes down to a matter of how one defines, or what one believes is truth or facts or reality. It is a current living example of the consequences of having or not having reality-based facts and truth, or wrong interpretations of what may actually be facts and truth. This very same problem has given us the current Covid-19 pandemic dilemma which has proven to be so divisive and disruptive and for many disastrous, not as much from the disease itself as from the reaction to it, the cure being much worse than the disease. It is also what gives rise to the whole Climate Change (i.e. “Global Warming”) controversy, and the popular movement toward socialism demonizing capitalism, and the associated growing specter of Globalism. All of these have very dire implications with respect to the future of not only the American way of life, but globally affecting the lives of virtually everyone around the world. Again, as Jesus said, “the truth will set you free” – He was clearly referring to reality-based truth.
Reality Matters 