Facts and Hypothesis

I find it fascinating that people seem to confuse facts and hypothesis.

Facts are verifiable and essentially non-negotiable. Hypothesis is a theory that can be argued. Often when people argue a hypothesis they can be very compelling and very convincing. No matter how compelling and how convincing they are, however, a well argued hypothesis is still a hypothesis and doesn't become 'fact' until it can be totally verified.

I'll give an example.

There were some hypotheses that came into play at the end of World War II concerning Japan. The theory was that if the United States invaded Japan we would suffer 1,000,000 casualties and the death toll amongst the Japanese would be mind-boggling. The experience in Okinowa gave planners pause as so many of the Japanese civilians jumped off cliffs to their deaths. We had built three atomic bombs. We tested one and President Truman decided to drop the other two on Japan in a hope to end the war. People still debate whether this was a correct decision and/or a moral decision.

Here are the facts. We dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. Fact.

Many people were killed and two cities were devastated. Fact.

Shortly thereafter Japan surrendered and the war ended. Fact.

Was it a correct decision? It achieved the goals. If that makes it correct, it was correct. Was it moral? Here is where hypothesis steps in. We can theorize the ethical correctness and will do so endlessly. We can argue if it was a good decision or a bad decision and we can make hypotheses and argue them and that's all well and good. As long as we are aware that the facts and the hypotheses are different, it's fine.

I've been listening to people debate on the President's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence. Lots of hypotheses are flying around and being argued. Talk radio has lit up the airways and people like Rush Limbaugh are stating that Libby did nothing wrong.

The problem is, that is his hypothesis and it flies in the fact of a fact.

Libby was prosecuted. We can argue whether or not he should have been, but he was prosecuted. Fact.

He went to trial. We can argue whether or not he should have gone to trial, but he did go to trial. Fact.

He was convicted of a crime by a jury. We can argue whether or not we believe he was guilty, but he was found guilty by a jury. Fact.

I'm weary of people saying he did 'nothing wrong' when he was tried and convicted. His trial and his conviction are not theories to be argued, they are cold, hard facts. He was convicted and that is also a cold, hard fact.

Whether or not one believes that Scooter Libby ought to have gone trial is great theater but we need to get past this talk radio culture of believing that hypotheses are facts and learn that facts are not negotiable.