Government, In Theory

A fundamental part of being an informed voter is understanding the difference between theory and fact. As a college student, I interact with many people walking the path of higher education, yet I'm dismayed at how often my fellow students simply do not understand this important distinction. Simply put, facts are things we can observe directly. I can look at the sky and see that it is cloudy. Theories are ideas we form through these observations. I can theorize from the clouds that it is likely to rain. The clouds are the facts; the likelihood of rain is the theory. As I gather more facts - about the sky or local weather patterns - I must be willing to revise my theory; even then, I may not be able to correctly predict the weather.

These are merely simple definitions. Much more complicated definitions exist, and those definitions are especially important in the sciences. A truly sound theory is formed following rigorous guidelines. However, the most important element of a theory, from the point of view of an informed voter, is its changeability and the recognition that while it may be true, it is not a fact. A good theory is predictive, meaning that it can be used to accurately forecast future observations. When facts do not align with the theory, the theory is thrown out - thus, we no longer believe the world is flat. More complicated still are social theories. Theories that try to predict human behavior rely on statistics, and cannot predict the outcome of individual events. Decisions concerning political issues rely heavily on social theories and, because their predictive nature is based on statistics, political theories can be very hard to disprove. However, when data does not support a particular theory, no matter how dearly we'd like to cling to it, the informed voter should recognize that the theory should not be used to create government policy.

The issues facing voters are often much weightier than whether it will rain. Unfortunately, these issues are often a mix between complex theories and personal values. We get so caught up in what we believe that many do not stop to think about the differences between what we know (facts), what we guess (theories), and the consequences of being wrong. We often jump up to support what we believe, when a little thought just might change our minds.

Two contemporary examples can illustrate this. First, there is global warming. We know temperatures are rising; we know glaciers and the ice at the poles are receding; we know there is more carbon dioxide and other so-called "greenhouse gases" in the air. We theorize these rising temperatures mark an on-going trend; we theorize that this trend is caused by man-made increases of these "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere; and, we theorize the results will be catastrophic if this trend continues. Personally, I'm skeptical of these theories. However, when considering the consequences of being wrong - the catastrophic impact to both man and planet - I do support actions that rely on these theories. I believe the potential good outweighs the potential harm of making recommended changes in how we live our lives. When it comes to global warming, this is how I personally balance what we know, what we guess, and the consequences against what I personally believe.

Next, there is economic stimulus. We know a lot less about economic stimulus than we do about global warming. Our economic policy (and that of every other nation) is driven primarily by theory. We know, based on data that has accumulated over the last year, our country is in recession. We theorize this recession continues; we theorize that economic stimulus will help us recover from this recession; we theorize that President Bush's "bailouts" provide economic stimulus; we theorize that the budget plan drafted by President Obama's administration also provides economic stimulus; and we theorize that these forms of economic stimulus can be enacted in a timely enough manner to help us recover from this recession instead of merely causing inflation (a contradictory theory). After studying what we know, what we guess, and the consequences of both in my economics classes (which happened to coincide with the national debate on these matters), I have found I cannot support economic stimulus.

Every day our lives are shaped by theories. Our government policies - indeed our government itself - are based on theories. This puts a great weight on the informed voter to stop and think about the theories underlying the issues - yet, it provides a great freedom, too. The great thing about theories is that they improve, if we're vigilant. Once upon a time, people believed the earth was flat. A lot of facts seemed to support this theory. But, the theory was not based on all the facts. Some brave people theorized the earth was round. Without their willingness to embrace a new theory, the Americas would never have been discovered, this nation would never have been born, and we wouldn't have a voice in how this nation is governed. So, be informed: ask yourself what do we know, what do we guess, what are the consequences of being wrong? Then, weigh the answers against what you believe. If we do that, then we cannot help but have better theories, better government, and a better nation.

By Stephanie Crist
Published: May 19, 2009 6:02 PM
0 Votes