4 ms·
How do you know the whacko is telling the truth this time? Only because you already know the facts from reliable sources. So given you already knew the facts
by manicdee 7y ago
How do you know the whacko is telling the truth this time?
Only because you already know the facts from reliable sources.
So given you already knew the facts in order to ascertain that the whacko was telling the truth, why are you bothering with the whacko?
Worse, by pointing out that the whacko was right this time, you encourage others to believe other claims by the same whacko, since they have been right at least once!
- mistermann 7y ago> Only because you already know the facts from reliable sources. Facts are sometimes very tricky things....how might one even determine what the actual facts are in this situation? > you encourage others to believe I feel similarly about anyone using the term "fact" so casually.
- manicdee 7y agoCan you illuminate me as to how I am “using the term fact so casually”? The facts in this case are easy to discern: they are numbers reported by NSW Police. The basis for those numbers is irrelevant: the only fact here is a media release from the police containing certain statements, and the claims made by certain agencies reporting on that media release,
- mistermann 7y agoWell, I suppose it depends on what exactly the facts being discussed are. For example, are we discussing: - numbers of fires actually started by people (and, deliberately vs accidentally) - (the unknown) number of people who have actually engaged in risky behavior - numbers of people who have been arrested (charged?) for any of the above > The basis for those numbers is irrelevant In terms of my "casual" accusation, agreed. I think it's fair to say that in this case it was actually me who was speaking too casually due to a preoccupation with the philosophical ideas around facts.