The truth is a very big picture

I'm stuggling with how to begin this. I don't intend to begin by trying to offend anyone, but at the same time there are some who will manage to be offended no matter what I write here. And that is, in fact, the problem I want to write about.

To begin with, I need to establish a level of understanding of what I'm actually talking about. I'm talking about the frameworks by which we have ccome to view the world and how we understand what we see.

• A piece of information can be true, but it alone is not "the truth".
• What do we call a piece of information that is not true?
• What do we call an incomplete collection of true information?
• What do we call a collection that includes both true and untrue piece of information?
• What do we call someone who spreads information he or she knows to be untrue? (That, in fact, is the definition of a liar.)
• But what do we call someone who unknowingly spreads information that is untrue?
• What do we call someone who has an incomplete collection of true information? Conversely, what do we call someone who has a collection that includes true and untrue information?
• What do we call someone who continues to cling to erroneous information in spite of being presented with evidence that it is false?
• What do we call someone who accepts as true information they receive from a source they have come to trust, even when that source has been proven false?

In his book "Idiot America", Charles Pierce summarizes his conclusions like this:

• In Idiot America, "facts" are what enough people believe.
• "Truth" is how fervently they believe it.
• Anything said often enough and loudly enough can come to be believed.
• The worst thing to be in Idiot America is an expert.

One of the reasons I deactivated my Facebook account was that I noticed it had become a platform for the spreading of untrue and emotionally charged information. People's apparent vested interest in posting information that is unrelated to them personally is really a quest for concensus.

They post their "facts" not as a basis for discussion or debate, but rather in the hope of having others agree with them. The more "facts" they post, the smarter they believe they are. The more people they find to agree with them, the smarter they believe they are perceived. For these people, disagreement is taken personally. It is a threat to their self-perceived standing in a community they have created out of like-minded individuals.

These people believe they are smart. They believe this because they know certain things. The mistake they make is in assuming that their collection of facts constitutes "the truth". They believe they are right. They also dismiss the very idea that they could be wrong. As far as they're concerned, what they know is the truth. What they don't know or don't believe is not the truth for them.

These people will also practice a form of selective ignorance. If someone presents them with information that is inconsistent with or is not in their collection (their basis for truth), they are entirely capable of rejecting it. They do this by 1) simply failing to remember or 2) failing to believe it. If they don't know it or don't believe it, it's simply not true.

The Facebook apps I could ignore. "Facts" posted as personal updates I found harder to ignore, especially when I believed them to be untrue, either partly or wholly. It was troubling to see people I know consistently posting bogus information. I found myself unable to ignore it and needed to refute or correct it. Doing so simply made me a threat to their well-being. It was more troubling to see people I know accepting the bogus information being posted by others.