4 ms·

This article doesn't address what I believe to be the actual problem: why should you "believe" in facts to begin with? Despite popular belief, there's no inhere

by tabeth 9y ago

This article doesn't address what I believe to be the actual problem: why should you "believe" in facts to begin with? Despite popular belief, there's no inherent reason to believe in facts. You could argue that factual information can make you money, however that's not necessary true. One can become quite rich by spreading lies, actually. So... why believe in facts at all? The answer to this will generally include some intellectual elitism, driving away the group I describe in the first paragraph even further. People might use words such as correct and right, but those words already impose a value judgement to begin with, only further begging the question.

lgas 9y ago
The value in having (true) beliefs comes in being able to predict the future more accurately and therefore make better decisions.
- fictioncircle 9y ago
  Tbpfh, that is only true for people of above average ability to remain calm in the face of failure. I've seen many, many people make dumb decision after dumb decision despite having all the facts because of emotions.
- fnovd 9y ago
  When irrational actors are the ones making decisions, knowing facts won't necessarily help you and may end up coming back to bite you. As they say, the world around you can stay irrational longer than you can stay sane.
  - lgas 9y ago
    I was referring to you, the individual as being the decision maker. If you are irrational there's nothing I can do to help you. The reason we should want to believe true beliefs is the same reason we should want to not be irrational.
  - travmatt 9y ago
    Knowing that fact sounds very useful...
guelo 9y ago
One, of many reasons, is to be able to make informed voting decisions.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> One can become quite rich by spreading lies, actually. Belief and spreading are two different things.
dragonwriter 9y ago
Your argument for it not being important to believe facts has as it's premise certain fact claims, including "one can get quite rich by spreading lies". In order to even evaluate your argument (aside from just addressing it's logical flaws which are independent of facts), then, I must first bother to believe something about facts (maybe what you claim, maybe the opposite.)
Retra 9y ago
If it were factually not a good idea to believe facts, then why shouldn't you simply disbelieve that fact? Your argument here is blatantly self-contradictory and demonstrably useless. Facts should be believed because they are - by by definition and in practice - necessary to avoiding failure. Those things that cause failure are factual components of reality. If you don't believe in them, how can you hope to avoid them? Those things that lead to success are factual components of reality. If you don't believe in them, how can you hope to understand them? Etc., ad infinitum for all things.
- tabeth 9y ago
  Your premise -- that [facts] are necessary to avoiding failure -- is false. What dictionary are you reading that defines a fact as being something necessary to avoid failure?
coolgeek 9y ago
> why should you "believe" in facts to begin with? I'm not really sure what you're asking here, especially since you put believe in quotes. Facts are - by definition - things that are true, indisputable, regardless of whether you believe them or not. As such, a refusal to believe facts makes one wrong - at least about that particular thing. If a person insists on being wrong about a particular thing, in the face of facts proving such wrongness, it is probable that that person is: - wrong about other things - unable or unwilling to reason correctly (at least in certain circumstances) I don't know about you, but wherever possible, I try to avoid having to rely in any way, or otherwise be affected by the actions of people who can't or won't act rationally
- tabeth 9y ago
  I agree that facts by definition are things that are true. I disagree that refusing to believe said facts makes you wrong, unless the discussion was solely centered around asserting said fact to be true or not. In my experience that's rarely the case. Even in your example you said that it is probable that the person is wrong about other things or unable or unwilling to reason correctly if they insist on being wrong about a particular thing. However, facts are only defined by the present state of knowledge one possesses. In other words, facts can change to conjecture with the introduction of new evidence. How do you know someone who refuses to believe what you think is a fact is not just more enlightened than you?
  - coolgeek 9y ago
    > However, facts are only defined by the present state of knowledge one possesses. In other words, facts can change to conjecture with the introduction of new evidence. What you are alluding to here are not facts, they are hypotheses, guesses, theories, conjecture... I wrote this comment. That is a fact. It will never change, regardless of any evidence you may speculate. It will be a fact until the heat death of the universe. Anybody who refuses to believe this fact is not more enlightened than me, they are someone who does not understand what a fact is. To extend Moynihan - everybody is entitled to their own opinions, hypotheses, guesses, theories, conjecture, etc. But they are not entitled to their own facts.

by tabeth 9y ago

lgas 9y ago

The value in having (true) beliefs comes in being able to predict the future more accurately and therefore make better decisions.

fictioncircle 9y ago
Tbpfh, that is only true for people of above average ability to remain calm in the face of failure. I've seen many, many people make dumb decision after dumb decision despite having all the facts because of emotions.
fnovd 9y ago
When irrational actors are the ones making decisions, knowing facts won't necessarily help you and may end up coming back to bite you. As they say, the world around you can stay irrational longer than you can stay sane.
- lgas 9y ago
  I was referring to you, the individual as being the decision maker. If you are irrational there's nothing I can do to help you. The reason we should want to believe true beliefs is the same reason we should want to not be irrational.
- travmatt 9y ago
  Knowing that fact sounds very useful...

guelo 9y ago

One, of many reasons, is to be able to make informed voting decisions.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> One can become quite rich by spreading lies, actually. Belief and spreading are two different things.

dragonwriter 9y ago

Your argument for it not being important to believe facts has as it's premise certain fact claims, including "one can get quite rich by spreading lies". In order to even evaluate your argument (aside from just addressing it's logical flaws which are independent of facts), then, I must first bother to believe something about facts (maybe what you claim, maybe the opposite.)

Retra 9y ago

If it were factually not a good idea to believe facts, then why shouldn't you simply disbelieve that fact? Your argument here is blatantly self-contradictory and demonstrably useless. Facts should be believed because they are - by by definition and in practice - necessary to avoiding failure. Those things that cause failure are factual components of reality. If you don't believe in them, how can you hope to avoid them? Those things that lead to success are factual components of reality. If you don't believe in them, how can you hope to understand them? Etc., ad infinitum for all things.

tabeth 9y ago
Your premise -- that [facts] are necessary to avoiding failure -- is false. What dictionary are you reading that defines a fact as being something necessary to avoid failure?

coolgeek 9y ago

> why should you "believe" in facts to begin with? I'm not really sure what you're asking here, especially since you put believe in quotes. Facts are - by definition - things that are true, indisputable, regardless of whether you believe them or not. As such, a refusal to believe facts makes one wrong - at least about that particular thing. If a person insists on being wrong about a particular thing, in the face of facts proving such wrongness, it is probable that that person is: - wrong about other things - unable or unwilling to reason correctly (at least in certain circumstances) I don't know about you, but wherever possible, I try to avoid having to rely in any way, or otherwise be affected by the actions of people who can't or won't act rationally

tabeth 9y ago
I agree that facts by definition are things that are true. I disagree that refusing to believe said facts makes you wrong, unless the discussion was solely centered around asserting said fact to be true or not. In my experience that's rarely the case. Even in your example you said that it is probable that the person is wrong about other things or unable or unwilling to reason correctly if they insist on being wrong about a particular thing. However, facts are only defined by the present state of knowledge one possesses. In other words, facts can change to conjecture with the introduction of new evidence. How do you know someone who refuses to believe what you think is a fact is not just more enlightened than you?
- coolgeek 9y ago
  > However, facts are only defined by the present state of knowledge one possesses. In other words, facts can change to conjecture with the introduction of new evidence. What you are alluding to here are not facts, they are hypotheses, guesses, theories, conjecture... I wrote this comment. That is a fact. It will never change, regardless of any evidence you may speculate. It will be a fact until the heat death of the universe. Anybody who refuses to believe this fact is not more enlightened than me, they are someone who does not understand what a fact is. To extend Moynihan - everybody is entitled to their own opinions, hypotheses, guesses, theories, conjecture, etc. But they are not entitled to their own facts.