There is an additional reason why this story strikes home and is quite relevant today—in a world where facts are often elusive and struggles regarding facts are often quite common and frequently destructive. At the heart of the matter is a fundamental conflict between two ways in which we can view and engage Facts in our world. This conflict was acknowledged recently by President Biden when he referenced the 2002 struggle between those of the “realty-based community” and those of the “empire.”. Heather Cox Richardson (2023) offers the following summary account of this conflict:
That year (2002), a senior advisor to George W. Bush told journalist Ron Suskind that “guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,’ which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.”‘ Suskind responded by talking about the principles of the Enlightenment-the principles on which the Founders based the Declaration of Independence-that put careful observation of reality at the center of human progress. But Bush’s aide wanted no part of that, Suskind recalled: “He cut me off. ‘That’s not the way the world really works anymore,’ he continued. ‘We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality…. We’re history’s actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
The two combatants in this conflict are often labeled “objectivists” and “constructivists.” Ron Suskind and those of the Enlightenment would be aligned with the objectivism perspective, while Bush’s aide is clearly aligned with the constructivist perspective. The advocates for both perspectives have much to say about Facts—and help to determine the nature and duration of a Fact’s life. We begin this essay regarding facts by providing a brief description regarding each of these two epistemological (knowledge-oriented) perspectives.
Objectivism vs. Constructivism
While all (or at least most) perspectives on the nature of “facts” are concerned with one very ambitious undertaking—understanding the nature of reality—there are many different turns and pathways that one can take on the way to this understanding. In general, we would propose that there are two interrelated dimensions that help to discriminate among these differing definitions and meanings. One dimension concerns the static or dynamic nature of one’s notion about being. Is “being” a noun or a verb? Are we talking about an object or about a process?
The second dimension concerns the basic assumption that it is or is not possible to ultimately identify the basic nature of being—in other words, to accurately describe and validate a description of reality. Those who believe this description is possible are called “objectivists.” Jim Fingal would seem to embrace this perspective—as least in his job as fact-checker. Those who believe it is not possible are called “constructivists.” As a compelling storyteller and essayist, John D’Agata exemplifies this constructivist perspective.
Download Article 1K Club
