"Just think, for instance, of how confidently we make predictions about what will be, and with what remarkable precision we can interpret, explain, and classify what has already happened. Yet we never seem to notice how suspiciously often what happens - in fact - does not conform to what - according to our prognoses - was to have happened. We know with utter certainty what should happen, and when it turns out differently, we also know why it had to be different. The only thing that causes us trouble is knowing what will really happen. To know that assumes knowing how things really are now. But that is precisely where the catch lies: between a detailed prediction of the future and a broad interpretation of the past, there is somehow no room for what is most important of all - a down-to-earth analysis of the present."
I'm struck by how much this quote reminds me of every political talk radio host (right or left) I've ever listened to. They are all (in their own eyes) so right, so precisely on, so prescient, so sure.
The problem with our political theories is that we are unable to see it when "a fact is in conflict with an a priori interpretation of it." We have already pre-judged and our prejudice all to often blinds us to what is right in front of our very eyes, and, even more importantly, to its meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment