3 ms·

> People start throwing link after link of facts and don't want to even reason about ideas. It's hopeless and I end up keeping my mouth shut. So, you take a co

by sgift 10y ago

> People start throwing link after link of facts and don't want to even reason about ideas. It's hopeless and I end up keeping my mouth shut. So, you take a contrarian view. People respond with facts. So, where's the problem? You don't like the facts? Don't want to hear them or what exactly?

pklausler 10y ago
The facts had a liberal bias.
- jat850 10y ago
  Facts don't have any bias, as I understand it. The collection of facts presented or absorbed can be picked or ignored with bias.
psyc 10y ago
It is trivial to cherry-pick facts that support a controversial, higher-level framing / viewpoint.
- sgift 10y ago
  Then it should be easy to provide facts which disprove their point and start a discussion.
tetromino_ 10y ago
People respond with long lists of facts, but do not bother to reason about them or put them in context, instead presuming that there is only one way to interpret the facts - the way that supports their preferred narrative. And keep in mind that there is a difference between fact and "fact". It is a fact that a scientific instrument recorded a certain value or that a particular person voiced a particular opinion. Everything beyond that - that the instrument is working as intended, that the person's memory and reasoning and honesty can be trusted, that the data point is representative of similar situations, that it is at all relevant to the question at hand - has some amount of uncertainty associated with it.
pcvarmint 10y ago
People take "short circuits" when coming to conclusions based on "facts". Instead of: 1. I value A more than B. 2. Facts show that X tends to cause A and Y tends to cause B. 3. Therefore I prefer X to Y. They do: 1. The facts show that Y causes B. 2. Therefore, how can you be against Y? 3. By arguing against Y, you are ignoring the facts of B. ... which is frankly a non-sequitur. Arguing against a conclusion or policy is not the same as ignoring facts.

by sgift 10y ago

pklausler 10y ago

The facts had a liberal bias.

jat850 10y ago
Facts don't have any bias, as I understand it. The collection of facts presented or absorbed can be picked or ignored with bias.

psyc 10y ago

It is trivial to cherry-pick facts that support a controversial, higher-level framing / viewpoint.

sgift 10y ago
Then it should be easy to provide facts which disprove their point and start a discussion.

tetromino_ 10y ago

People respond with long lists of facts, but do not bother to reason about them or put them in context, instead presuming that there is only one way to interpret the facts - the way that supports their preferred narrative. And keep in mind that there is a difference between fact and "fact". It is a fact that a scientific instrument recorded a certain value or that a particular person voiced a particular opinion. Everything beyond that - that the instrument is working as intended, that the person's memory and reasoning and honesty can be trusted, that the data point is representative of similar situations, that it is at all relevant to the question at hand - has some amount of uncertainty associated with it.

pcvarmint 10y ago

People take "short circuits" when coming to conclusions based on "facts". Instead of: 1. I value A more than B. 2. Facts show that X tends to cause A and Y tends to cause B. 3. Therefore I prefer X to Y. They do: 1. The facts show that Y causes B. 2. Therefore, how can you be against Y? 3. By arguing against Y, you are ignoring the facts of B. ... which is frankly a non-sequitur. Arguing against a conclusion or policy is not the same as ignoring facts.