Fallacy of Fact, and the Critical Importance of Context

“The least meaningful thing are the facts…”

In the pursuit of understanding, facts — in an abstract — are often the least important component of an important truth. The reason for that statement has everything to do with context, as illustrated in the following story:

A college journalism student was speaking with his professor when they looked out the window at a baseball player taking swings in the batting cage below. The player was routinely launching long fly balls over the fence, and a small crowd was gathering to watch. The professor sent the student down to the field to find out more about the player.

Standing around the cage were three professional scouts. The student approached the first and asked him his impression of the hitter.

“He’s a stud, a real prospect. Over the past week, he’s carried his team on his back, hitting over .500, smacking a half dozen homers and driving in 20 runs. He’s an absolute monster, a great power hitter. “

The journalist took careful notes, then moved on to the second scout for confirmation.

“He’s a pretty good player, I guess. He’s hitting about .290 on the season and has a dozen home runs in the thirty-some games. He has a chance, but he’s got some more to prove before I’d get excited.”

The student was confused… so he approached the third scout hoping to find out which was right.

“He’s not that much of a player, really. In his career here at Tech, he’s hitting about .240, and his power comes and goes… his slugging percentage is below .400 over the three years, which is low for a third baseman.”

Puzzled, the student returned to the classroom and did some research on his own. Armed with the results, he approached the professor.

“Well, what did you find out about that player?” the professor queried. “How special is he?”

The student replied: “I don’t know what to say. The three scouts had very different opinions — one thought that he was great, one mediocre, and one less than good.”

“Did they offer numbers?”

“Yes, all three quoted statistics that proved their points.” said the student. “Which of them gave you accurate numbers?” “All three” replied the journalist. “That’s the problem… all three were right!”

The professor nodded. “So, you have three sets of facts, each of which is accurate, and each of which proves entirely different conclusions. What have you learned?”

“I’m not sure… they each were telling the truth, but they each said something entirely different… how can I tell which was right?”

“This is the important thing for you to learn: Facts are entirely subject to context. A fact alone isn’t important, has little value… what matters is the relationship of the fact to the question that you are asking. If you were looking into the player’s recent performance, then his career statistics are of lesser value than his last week’s work. If you were asking about who was the team’s MVP this season, then the whole year would be more relevant than just the week’s total, or his career statistics. In order for a fact to matter at all, it has to exist within an understood context; without that, facts are often irrelevant.”

In our everyday existence, we are constantly provided with things called facts. More often than not, they are “true”, in that there is some form of confirmation as to their validity… but that validity is mechanical and has little or no bearing on the fact’s usefulness or importance. Here’s a second story, this time in a business context:

The head of sales was reviewing the month’s production from two of his salespeople. The first salesman had made 30 sales, good for $300,000; the second salesman had made 20 sales, bringing in $200,000. The first salesman was told that he’d had a terrible month and that much more was expected of him… the second salesman was praised, and given a nice bonus for his work.

The context was this: the first salesman had been given the best territory, one that had previously generated 50 sales and $500,000… the second salesman was given a territory that had been abandoned, and which had rarely generated meaningful prospects. The first salesman sold far more than the second one did; the second one was of far more value to the company and had done a superior job. The facts, absent of context, told nothing important about the performance of either.

Listen carefully — in most arguments, both sides are telling the truth, despite their opposing positions. The basis for the disagreement is a lack of concurrence on the context, the appropriate basis for whatever outcome is being debated. Focus on finding an agreement there, and a mutual conclusion becomes inevitable.