How to Mislead with Facts

The problem is policy.

Imagine two friends, Alice and Bob. Alice thinks COVID is not a problem. Doesn't mask, hasn't had a single shot, all the rest. Bob is terrified of COVID. Masks up at home, space bubble helmet outside, all the rest.

The only outcome that works is Alice and Bob agreeing that they have different risk preferences. That they each should live their lives in accordance, but that they have no right to force each other to adopt the same behaviors. Bob gets used to doing a lot of stuff over Zoom, and Alice gets used to doing a lot more Zoom calls than she did before.

What if, instead, Bob tries to force the entire world to wear masks all the time, and undergo an endless stream of boosters, all in order to satisfy his risk preference? Alice will respond in-kind, and now we're in a tit-for-tat situation. Endless retaliation.

Now, imagine that Bob has political power, and can mandate his desires into law. Bob has now used deadly force -- the police -- to coerce Alice into doing what he wants.

Alice, being a big fan of consent, is having none of it... and that's where we are today.

Same would be true if the roles were reversed.

This article is desperately in need of some examples. I can't believe there isn't one.

"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche

cherry picked article :)

Imagine papers with conflicting results. One side cites one subset of papers. The other side cites the other subset. Both feel the other are are disingenuous.

Both sides are citing true facts (“these papers exist”), both sides are wrong (the data is in fact inconclusive)