FACT vs OPINION

[Mr B]

100 years ago, Most of what we commonly use today, Back then, was pure science fiction,

[CaptTom]

Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson does a bit about thee kinds of truth. You'll find it in several of his interviews, including this segment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDoufL_Uf4Q

A slightly longer (and I think, better) version starts at around 45:53 of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxV92NPNy8o

That whole video is a fantastic way to kill an hour and a half, if you're up to it.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Understood. I did say most people. On a basic level everyday though, I think that most people stand behind Newton's laws of motion. (Don't know about gravity) In a physical world, they are very self evident. They are not the same as a lot of this peer reviewed corporate sponsored science that people are claiming is the Holy Grail these days. I think that I made my point.

Yes, you made your point. I reminds me of Isaac Asimov,

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yes, you made your point. I reminds me of Isaac Asimov,

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

Taken out of context. Read the article:https://media.aphelis.net/wp-content..._Ignorance.pdf
I am literate. So are you. We have internet. Research something.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Taken out of context. Read the article:https://media.aphelis.net/wp-content..._Ignorance.pdf
I am literate. So are you. We have internet. Research something.

I don't see how jackdale took Asimov out of context. I think Asimov's ideas about anti-intellectualism apply very well to our current "post-truth" societies, where a belief or opinion, no matter how ill-informed or irrational, has trumped (pun intended) objective facts. In short, we are living in an Orwellian* world.
In his essay, Asimov argues that there is a cult of anti-intellectualism, in America, that perpetuates a very flawed concept of democracy:
that every person’s opinion, whether ill-informed or well-informed, is considered equal ("... 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge ...").
Stated another way, in a democracy, equality of rights does not necessarily mean equality of knowledge — an opinion formed on the basis of lies does not have the same significance of an opinion based on objective facts. And this is something that political parties (and demagogues) misuse to their advantage: it is in their best interest to disseminate lies, to perpetuate ignorance, to create a cult of anti-intellectualism, to manipulate the masses.

Here is a transcript (that’s easier to read, than the PDF Thumbs Up linked) of Isaac Asimov’s essay, “A Cult of Ignorance”
➥ https://gist.github.com/jaeh/028e1b342fb548096765

* Consider these notable lines from Orwell's '1984':
“... The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command… In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it… Orthodoxy means not thinking — not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness… And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth...”

Government lies, newspapers lie, everybody lies; but in a democracy, they are all different lies.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Understood. I did say most people. On a basic level everyday though, I think that most people stand behind Newton's laws of motion. (Don't know about gravity) In a physical world, they are very self evident. They are not the same as a lot of this peer reviewed corporate sponsored science that people are claiming is the Holy Grail these days. I think that I made my point.

Firstly very few people actually understand Newtonian science , seeing an Apple falling is not the same as understanding the reasons for it. , ask an average person “why “ does the Apple fall towards the earth from and stand back , simply saying gravity does not explain it by the way.

I worked in my early engineering days in a multi disclipinary team in a corporate blue skies research lab , funded by a then very big multi national

We had no direct economic objectives , merely to investigate science and applications of it , that might be useful in the future for the corporation to consider developing

We had a very rigorous journaling system , and material was regularly contributed to various well know peer reviewed journals

The people on the teams were highly qualified and of world renown in their field, in my opinion their integrity was above reproach , the company never ever tried to influence their opinions and in fact these people would quit before that would be accepted and the company knew it.

There are only two major funding sources for academic style research , government sources and corporate sources .

To people with similar opinions as expressed above , both are biased , which leaves you with effectively with nothing to trust , into that gap goes all sorts of crackpot science and airtime to charlatans

At the end of the day the average person can’t be an expert in everything ( or anything ) , so you have trust other people ( in fact human society is largely built on trust ) . I have no issue in trusting respected corporate funded research and I’m the type that reads peer reviewed journal submissions, the quality of which is way better then foxnews or globalresearch.ca lol

[UFO]

Today's Fact may well be on tomorrows garbage pile and what scientists state as fact today may well be laughed as preposterous in a few years or decades time - Plenty of examples in our not so distant and distant path.



As far as reality goes here's a good scientific article


https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...-you-make-it-0

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by GordMay

FACT vs OPINION, Belief, or Prejudice.

People think that I'm stupid, because I ask them for money, in exchange of politically incorrect opinions.
Well, I beg to differ.

An opinion, without substantiating evidence, is mere conjecture, or speculation.
When forming personal convictions, we often interpret factual evidence, through the filter of our values, feelings, tastes, and past experiences. Hence, most statements we make in speaking and writing are assertions of fact, opinion, belief, or prejudice.

We value the right to believe what we think is right, and to express our opinions accordingly.
What is not true, however, is that an opinion is a fact. Alarmingly, most people believe that their opinions are facts.
Wrong.
The truth is, that a fact is a statement, that can be supported to be true or false, by data or evidence.
Indeed, many of our opinions are based on emotions, personal history, and values; all of which can be completely unsupported by meaningful evidence.
The naked truth is this:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But not all opinions are equally valuable.

It takes more information, to make us believe something we don't want to believe, than something we do (cognitive bias & motivated reasoning).
If someone firmly believes some fact to be true, that I just as firmly believe to be false, it is hard for either of us not to see that other person as stupid, disingenuous, both, or worse.
Sometimes, expertise/knowledge/intelligence even magnifies the tendency to engage in politically motivated reasoning. It's almost as though a sophisticated approach to science, gives people more tools, to curate their own sense of reality.

Given our varying cognitive biases, we have to ask ourselves:
not
“Why do they disagree with the science?'
but rather
“Why do they want to disagree with the science?”

A license to ignore reality is a dangerous path to travel, regardless of our political leanings. If facts are somehow devalued, as a currency, it'll be a lot harder to achieve our common goals.
Factual evidence should always trump opinion, belief, or prejudice, in prioritizing the information, that is used to guide policy.

Two writers, who might disagree on many subjects, share a disdainful scorn for Opinions Without Evidence:

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." ~ Christopher Hitchens (Hitchen’s razor)

“Do you know what we call opinion in the absence of evidence? We call it prejudice.” ~ Michael Crichton

Quote.

An opinion, without substantiating evidence, is mere conjecture, or speculation

No, it is Schrodinger's Opinion...... It can be in any state of accuracy. The substantiating evidence wether present or not does not alter the accuracy of the opinion and anyone who disregards a statement because it is simply unsubstantiated is foolish and visa versa. Although doing just that in this world it is considered common sense, we would do well not to be so common.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Quote.
An opinion, without substantiating evidence, is mere conjecture, or speculation
No, it is Schrodinger's Opinion...... It can be in any state of accuracy. The substantiating evidence wether present or not does not alter the accuracy of the opinion and anyone who disregards a statement because it is simply unsubstantiated is foolish and visa versa. Although doing just that in this world it is considered common sense, we would do well not to be so common.

Indeed, an astute observation.
A conjecture, speculation, or wild-assed-guess, can be accidentally (coincidentally) right, just as the stopped (12 hr) clock is correct, twice a day.
So, while the unsubstantiated opinion may be "in any state of accuracy", it has little/no value, because it cannot be reliably in any state (right or wrong of accuracy).
Note, that being reliably wrong, can sometimes be nearly as useful, as being reliably right .

With today's access to information ('Google' etc), it seems ridiculous to make unsubstantiated (especially radical or contrarian) statements, without some supporting evidence, even if it only be rhetorical argument.

“The clock that stands still, and points resolutely in one direction, is certain of being right twice in the four and twenty hours—while others may keep going continually, and continually be going wrong.” ~ Washington Irving (as Diedrich Knickerbocker)

Common sense is neither common nor sensible. The word common, by definition, suggests that common sense is held by a large number of people. If it was common sense it’d be, common. Everyone would think that way.

I’m reminded of the old riddle: "Which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold?"
You know it’s a trick. But we probably felt a little inner tug toward answering “gold”. That feeling is our intuitive (common sense) theory about heft and bulk, learned as a baby, or maybe hardwired, interfering with our intellectual understanding of weight & mass.

One could almost say, that common sense is like deodorant. The people who need it most never use it.

As Voltaire observed:
“Common sense is not so common.”
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
Of course, he also quipped: “A witty saying proves nothing.”

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Taken out of context. Read the article:https://media.aphelis.net/wp-content..._Ignorance.pdf

I have read that article. Many times. That quote is very much in context. Funny how it remains just as timely today as when it was written.

Originally Posted by GordMay

* Consider these notable lines from Orwell's '1984':
“... The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command… In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it… Orthodoxy means not thinking — not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness… And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth...”

This one I hadn't seen in a while. But of course it too is 100% applicable today.

Originally Posted by UFO

Today's Fact may well be on tomorrows garbage pile and what scientists state as fact today may well be laughed as preposterous in a few years or decades time - Plenty of examples in our not so distant and distant path.

I don't see it that way. Facts derived using the tools and methods of science are rarely, if ever, laughed at or thrown on a garbage pile. They can be added to, or a deeper understanding of how they arise can be developed.

The classic example is how Einstein's theories expanded but did not invalidate Newton's. And today we're in the midst of some fascinating research which goes beyond both of those. We have some amazing theories and some fascinating experimental results. But nobody is claiming to have all the "facts" yet. Whatever the real facts turn out to be, they won't invalidate Newton or Einstein, but add another layer of understanding.

So, no, you can not choose to dismiss facts you don't like simply because, before the tools of science were available, people believed things which were pure speculation and later shown to be false. I don't hear any serious suggestion that we go back to pre-scientific times. I don't think I'd enjoy living in a cave.

[Jason Flare]

“And books which told me everything about the wasp, except why.”
— Dylan Thomas

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Taken out of context. Read the article:https://media.aphelis.net/wp-content..._Ignorance.pdf
I am literate. So are you. We have internet. Research something.

It seems to me that the the context of the quote supports my assertion. Asimov is correct, aliteracy and "dumbing down" are a serious issues.

In a physical world, they are very self evident. They are not the same as a lot of this peer reviewed corporate sponsored science that people are claiming is the Holy Grail these days. I think that I made my point.

You were critical of peer-reviewed science, claiming that Newton's laws were self-evident, when science knows that Newton's laws are rife with anomalies. Science can be counter-intuitive; self evident "truths" are not so true.

Did you watch the short video on three truths?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by UFO

Today's Fact may well be on tomorrows garbage pile and what scientists state as fact today may well be laughed as preposterous in a few years or decades time - Plenty of examples in our not so distant and distant path...

That GordMay, UFO, or any scientist has been/is wrong, in the past/present, in no way suggests (much less proves) that jackdale, or anyone else (other than, perhaps Gord or UFO) is likely be wrong now, or in the future.
Your proposition is ludicrous!

[Mike OReilly]

The core issue has more to do with increased tribalism, and the connection this has with societal trust.

The so-called developed world is under severe economic and hegemonic pressure. The tide of economic dominance is on its ebb for most people, while other part of the world are on a rising tide of growth. With this comes a shift in real power for nations and regions.

People under stress often turn against each other in an effort to fix things, but more often to name, shame & blame. We build walls, break alliances, and look for easy answers to complex challenges. We circle the wagons around US, and keep out all of THEM.

Of course this world is the perfect stew pot for false prophets peddling faux solutions -- usually ones that reinforce the US vs THEM perspective. Who do we blame? Those egghead "elites" who got us here! Those scientists and professionals who claim to know things based on expertise, experience and science.

"Do we trust those elites?" shouts the Big Man from the dais. NO!! bellows the crowd. "Who do we trust?" Our people -- people like us. People who tell us it's all the fault of someone else.

Demagogues thrive in this environment, which is why we see the rise of authoritarianism throughout many of our so-called "free" societies. Becoming the purveyor and protector of the Real Truth is always a key step in this revolution. Branding and bashing anyone else who claims knowledge is right out of the playbook of this kind of politics. So anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-everything-but-us becomes the narrative. Trust is shattered.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Yihang

Truth is different from Fact though. Basically truth can be manipulated.

Yep, it's actually pretty rare for extreme claims on either side of any debate to not have at least some "facts" to back them.

It's all in the presentation and how people twist those facts to support their position.

PS: Star Trek's Spock always bugged me. He lived for pure logic. Yet, even the clinically insane follow logic...it's just that we can't always see all the pathways that it took for that logic to reach it's conclusion. Yet, a supposedly man of pure logic didn't understand this.