FACT vs OPINION

[Manateeman]

Thumb Up. I don’t know if the book is on line but you might be able to have your library get it for you.
If you look on Wikipedia you will find pages written on both men.
Regards, Mark

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by jackdale

“Argument from authority” is valid when dealing with a real authority.



https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...l-to-Authority

Anyone hubris enough to proclaim themselves a expert or authority of a issue will no doubt say the are the most “real” of all lol

Back to my, vet your experts but more over use common sense and be a independent thinker.

[NPCampbell]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

The scientific study of the way things move and why.

This is a concise definition of dynamics, a subset of physics. I had a hard time defining physics while excluding chemistry.

[Manateeman]

Lake Effect. Hi. You are correct. Facts indeed are facts but to say someone knows something...that they have knowledge of a fact...that is what I was trying to add clarity to...what are the conditions of knowledge.
When you have the President of our nation say something like the virus is a hoax or it will disappear...people listen and believe him. It’s not really just about x being y, it’s the fact he appears to believe it.
I really think he is a terribly ill person. I know that he was perfectly aware x is x and not y. He was well informed how deadly this virus was early on. People who believed in him just could not conceive he would lie to them by telling them x is y. Did he believe it? Is it accurate to say he had knowledge of the real facts?
That would assume he uses logic. There is no logic in the thinking of someone who suffers from narcissistic personality disorder.
His opinion, in his mind, becomes fact.
Happy trails to you.
Mark and the logical manatees

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Turn on your CRAAP detector.

https://guides.library.duq.edu/infor...valuation/home

https://youtu.be/GKX7W0-sGhU

I think you have mistaken.

My field is barren.

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by Manateeman

Lake Effect. Hi. You are correct. Facts indeed are facts but to say someone knows something...that they have knowledge of a fact...that is what I was trying to add clarity to...what are the conditions of knowledge.
When you have the President of our nation say something like the virus is a hoax or it will disappear...people listen and believe him. It’s not really just about x being y, it’s the fact he appears to believe it.
I really think he is a terribly ill person. I know that he was perfectly aware x is x and not y. He was well informed how deadly this virus was early on. People who believed in him just could not conceive he would lie to them by telling them x is y. Did he believe it? Is it accurate to say he had knowledge of the real facts?
That would assume he uses logic. There is no logic in the thinking of someone who suffers from narcissistic personality disorder.
His opinion, in his mind, becomes fact.
Happy trails to you.
Mark and the logical manatees

I have never heard of anyone thinking the virus was a “hoax”. If the president thought it was a hoax he wouldn’t have taken the actions he did early on.

Tons of people think the reaction was completely stupid and bordering on mindless hysteria

And yes, the virus will more or less disappear, one way or another, yuuup

Also as far as words to describe the virus goes, contagious, Chinese, cough, over-rated, those words all far better describe the virus compared to “deadly”

I mean you got like under a 1% chance of death from it, one might opine you are more likely to get killed driving to get tested for the virus, than if you actually had the virus.

Buuuuuut, Id wager your actual point of contention wasn’t the actual virus. However I don’t proclaim myself a “expert”, as I’m not a politician.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

A fact ... is a fact (ie true), regardless of who believes it.

Well a Fact Maybe a Fact, but it may or may not be true, it's irrelevant of whether everyone believes it or no one believes it - Belief does not make it ultimately True or Untrue (only to the individual) - It either is or it isn't, it's just our knowledge or lack of that clouds it. A fact that is universally believed as true today, may well not be true tomorrow.

[Yihang]

Originally Posted by UFO

Well a Fact Maybe a Fact, but it may or may not be true, it's irrelevant of whether everyone believes it or no one believes it - Belief does not make it ultimately True or Untrue (only to the individual) - It either is or it isn't, it's just our knowledge or lack of that clouds it. A fact that is universally believed as true today, may well not be true tomorrow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFPH...immyKimmelLive

Looks like no one like facts.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Kidding aside, consider that you've walked into an indigenous population somewhere. Through an interpreter you are to define for 8-10 year olds the term "physics."

So in a single sentence...don't google it, go from the gut...in a sentence how would you define physics to little kids? Sincerely no wrong answer here.

Great question!
Perhaps, physics is the study of the physical universe. and all in it.
Though very dissatisfied, with my first WAG, I'll restrain my inclination to research the question, for now.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

I don't watch tv much but can see what they are preparing us for. .

For what are they preparing us?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

Anyone hubris enough to proclaim themselves a expert or authority of a issue will no doubt say the are the most “real” of all lol

Back to my, vet your experts but more over use common sense and be a independent thinker.

This is one of the ways in which I vet my experts.

https://guides.library.duq.edu/infor...aluation/CRAAP

[Singularity]

On observation biasing....when a detail is hiding in plain site, but you don't see it because you're focused on other things...like the sculptor chiseling an elephant from stone......just now recognizing the presence of a piece of stone needing to be removed to better see the elephant hiding inside.

Manateeman's point about a narcissist I suggest is paradoxically wrong and most enlightening in identifying a chip of stone needing removal. I suggest it wrong to state that narcissists don't operate on logic. What's (original) logic except identifying information of the presence of a pattern. We call people a "narcissist" when they exhibit a specific pattern of behavior, which has a logic unto itself. Chaotic to others, yes, but it works for narcissists (to some degree...it's how they get by in life). But narcissists have thin skin/serious sensitivity to shame.

So more importantly the honor thing, particularly people from honor cultures (that isn't per se associated with narcissism but are ripe to be led by a narcissist). Generalizing, honor-culture people are more about defending the honor of themselves and like-minded people (including their leader) than they are about defending some "universal fact thing."
Honor culture = "you do you, I'll do me, so long as we don't offend each other's honor, we're good."
~Regular culture = "to each their own, but most paramount is that we agree on organizing principles."

Science people are disproportionately zealots about recognizing and being precise about patterns in the environment...and ultimately the natural laws that create those patterns. Honor culture people typically don't dig so deep; in the worst of situations an outsider looking in on an honor culture characterizes such people as an ignorance mutual-aid and self protection society. "Confederacy of Dunces" deal.

The universe loves irony; in the ancient world the priests were the scientists. Today's priests (and followers) are disproportionately not scientists (who themselves still seek to understand the natural laws). Where everything in the universe is bipolar and changes sides over time, someday the priests will be the scientists again, just probably not next week. In the mean time, arguing opinions/facts with some people is more likely to end up in a boxing ring than a library.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

This testing won't be able to identify any long term effects. I don't watch tv much but can see what they are preparing us for. I don't think that Tecta would affect your DNA.

I'll admit to the same knee-jerk concern, when I read of Pfizer;s & Moderna's RNA based vaccines.

Of the (3) recent candidate vaccines, nearing approval, none are DNA based.

To trigger an immune response, many vaccines put a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies.
In principle, AstraZeneca’s adenovirus-based vaccine could have an advantage over mRNA-based products as it has good tolerability and could offer longer-lasting protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. The company’s AZD1222 uses a non-replicating chimpanzee adenovirus to express the wild-type version of the spike protein

Not so, mRNA vaccines, like Pfizer's (BNT162b2) and Moderna’s (mRNA-1273).
BTW: The ‘m’ stands for modified Messenger nucleosides (nucleoside-modified messenger.)
Pfizer/ BioNtech BNT162b2 uses a Uridine containing mRNA (uRNA) or nucleoside modified mRNA (modRNA) mixed with proprietary lipoplex formulation for the three antigens, as well as a fourth vaccine candidate self-amplifying mRNA (saRNA)
Moderna mRNA-1273 uses a Non-replicating RNA genetic material mixed with LNP formulation (proprietary ionizable lipid, SM-102, and three commercially available lipids, cholesterol, DSPC, and PEG2000 DMG)

Experts say several factors argue for mRNA vaccines’ safety.
For one, mRNA can’t cause an infection.
It also doesn’t enter the cell’s nucleus, or affects genetic material (it’s non-replicating), so the chance of its integration into human DNA is believed to be very low.
In addition, the body breaks down mRNA and its lipid carrier within a matter of hours, assuaging some concerns about long-term risks. However, this rapid degradation raises questions, about mRNA vaccines’ protective duration.

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and Ribonucleic acid (RNA) perform different functions in humans.
DNA replicates and stores genetic information. It is a blueprint for all genetic information, contained within an organism
RNA converts the genetic information contained within DNA to a format used to build proteins, and then moves it to ribosomal protein factories. Messenger RNA (mRNA) copies portions of genetic code, a process called transcription, and transports these copies to ribosomes, which are the cellular factories that facilitate the production of proteins from this code.

Yes, Tecta is unlikely affect your DNA, as is an mRNA vaccine. Tecta, or pantoprazole magnesium (a proton pump inhibitor, or PPI), like most medications, does have contraindications, and (uncommon) side effects, such as:
abdominal pain
diarrhea (mild)
dizziness
headache
nausea

[Mike OReilly]

A fact is a verifiable piece of information or a general understanding. Facts can be wrong, but they are open to falsification. They stand until falsified.

An opinion is an interpretation of a situation or phenomena. They do not necessarily stand on facts, although they certainly can.

When a credible expert gives an opinion, they do so based on the summary of verifiable facts on hand. When a babbler gives an opinion, facts are irrelevant, or more often these days cherry-picked from the totality of facts.

This is why expertise matters, and this is also why not all opinions are equal.

[Capn Jimbo]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

I have never heard of anyone thinking the virus was a “hoax”. If the president thought it was a hoax he wouldn’t have taken the actions he did early on...


I mean you got like under a 1% chance of death from it, one might opine you are more likely to get killed driving to get tested for the virus, than if you actually had the virus.

Oh, where to begin. About 35% of American thought it was a "hoax", and most of those still do. The hard core of denial. As for our soon to be ex-president, he didn't, and he did, lol.

Now. Speaking as a 30 year advanced practice nurse, public health. The mortality rate as a percent makes a terrible argument for a exponentially growing and dangerous pandemic that is not even close to over and will be the number one cause of death in the United States.

Worse yet - restricting the concern to mortality alone is a tragic, but perhaps intentional? We must consider the entirety of the ongoing world tragedy of Covid.

Analysis that follows is mine:

Long Term Consequences of Covid

No one is immune from lasting consequences. According to emerging studies:

18-34: 20%

35-49: 32%

50+: 47%

Overall: 35% The point: the focus on death rates – while still important – should not be your sole concern. Long term, possibly lifelong consequences are VERY important and affect FAR more people, of ALL ages. It has been well said that many of those who did not die may wish that they had. These include:

1. Crippling fatigue

2. Breathlessness

3. Persistent cough

4. Joint pain

5. Muscle aches

6. Tachycardia with exercise

7. Changes in hearing and/or eyesight

8. Headaches

9. Damage to key organs: heart, lungs, kidneys, gastrointestinal system

10. Depression and anxiety

11. Foggy thinking

12. De-realization (feeling you are “not really here”)

13. Tissue invasion (lingering small pockets of infection), eg in nerves (numbness/tingling)

14. Vertigo

15. Increased saliva, runny nose

16. Continuing diarrhea

17. Some evidence of new Type I diabetes, changes in blood sugar

18. Long term damage to the immune system

19. Suspected involvement in new auto-immune diseases

20. Blood vessel damage (due to hypercoagulation)

21. Strokes, psychosis and dementia.

None of these are related to the severity of the Covid infection. Any of these can and do occur with even mild(er) infection. Those who survive the ICU show continuing problems for up to a year (data still coming in), so far. An Italian study showed 87% of infected people had continuing issues even two months later. About 40% stated they were experiencing decreased quality of life, and issues affecting their ADL’s (activities of daily living).

A just released University of Maryland medical school study estimates that 30 to 50% of ALL infected people will suffer a degree of new and lasting/chronic mental illness, including PTSD. Students who survive are reporting lasting difficulties – academic, occupational and physical.

Friends, here’s the point. Covid is NOT the flu, and is immeasurably worse, more infective , with far more serious and long lasting damage. The focus on what some (mistakenly) consider “low” death rates is not the point. To the contrary, not dying may well be the only good thing, as “surviving” may mean a permanent change – negative – in your quality of life. How bad? We don’t know, but the indications are not good. Unlike the flu, up to half of all survivors will NOT “recover” in the classic sense, but will suffer a lasting reduction in their quality of life and losses in their ability to perform what we call Activities of Daily Living. It’s no joke.

A PHOSP-COVID large scale study (10,000 people) is now underway. Regardless, you MUST protect yourself now. It’s like smoking – we all knew cigarettes were dangerous long before it was “proved”. As an advanced practice nurse I’ve seen quite enough in the hundreds of current reports and smaller studies that I can advise – without equivocation – that at best, Covid may leave you wishing you had died, as your life changes forever.

For example, a good friend (also a nurse) foolishly exposed himself, contracted Covid – did NOT die – but now, months later – has permanent lung damage and can now barely walk to his mailbox and back without stopping halfway – and this months later. He was not admitted, no ICU, a so-called milder case. He was an active sailor and performed all his own maintenance on his cruising sailboat and home.

No more. His once active life has been permanently changed. Worse yet, his damaged lungs et al mean – in his own professional words – that “my next lung infection, even of the flu, will probably kill me.”

Still feeling political?

Addendum:

It’s time to put another shibboleth to bed. Our frequent flyers here seem to have a hangup about what they call “shutdowns”?! This is as if that descriptor alone means something. Countries are then compared by these amateurs, predictions made, crude theories proposed – all with the usual condescending tone of assumed authority.

Let’s get real. The real truth is that “lockdowns” are defined and rated by analyzing about 40 categories, each of which has about 4 different ratings (from absent, to mild, to moderate, to severe). Thus the “lockdowns” they so glibly promote are actually defined by over 160 different factors. The 40 different categories are then weighted as some have more of an effect than others.

In sum, the “lockdown” for a country or region carries a score of from 0 to 100. The descriptor alone means next to nothing. Is a “lockdown” rated “5” the same as a “lockdown” rated “95”? Of course not, but yet these self-appointed experts think so. But there’s more!

No country scores zero; nor does any country score 100. Further, the scores are constantly changing from day to day, week to week, month to month. Thus for our FF posters, a typical claim, like “Sweden has done ‘well” (whatever that means) without a real ‘lockdown’ (whatever that is)” – such a claim is ignorant, misleading, political and foolish. Such claims, and the arguments that follow, are more than a waste of time.

To the contrary, such claims – often politically driven – are part of the other virus: misinformation. With the estimated 30% of the population who sequentially considered Covid “a hoax”, then “will disappear”, is somehow “overstated” and that we need to end “lockdowns” – all of these unqualified and largely political claims only serve to insure that Covid will get much, much worse.

The lack of leadership, coordination, national and international planning – to my mind – is a self-induced human tragedy without equal in modern history. I say this: sailors, stick to sailing. Leave public health to the professionals. The idea that we public health professionals do not consider the economics (we do) is not only uninformed, it seems a blatant, political lie.



******************

I spent close to $100,000 becoming qualified as an advanced practice nurse. In public health we consider the science, relevant studies, the economics, social and cultural aspects – and more – all of which comprise the public and our community at large. Public health does NOT simply imply the physical – to the contrary it considers the community as a whole.

As a nurse I’ve gotta say it: those who hold forth here with their hundreds, nay thousands of listen-to-me posts need to listen more and spew less. All of our lives are at stake.