3 ms·
I generally disagree with the framing of this topic. I think the real issue is that what many people call "facts" are not facts at all. At least, they aren't ea
by xboxnolifes 5y ago
I generally disagree with the framing of this topic. I think the real issue is that what many people call "facts" are not facts at all. At least, they aren't easily or immediately verifiably true to the receiver, so unless you blindly trust everything you hear, you must make judgement calls.
If you read a research paper by some John D, that spells out a hypothesis, study plan, results, and summary, the written summary of results (even the the actual results themselves) is not the "fact" of the study topic.
The facts are:
- John G wrote these things down into a report paper
- John G claims to have followed the proposed plan properly
- John G claims to have accurately recorded the results
Even with replicated research, you are merely improving the statistical odds that the two people aren't putting out bad information, intentionally or otherwise.
If I tell someone that type 1 diabetes is a genetic disorder, there is only 1 fact from the receiver's perspective: I claim that type 1 diabetes is genetic. I have provided no way of verifying that information to them. If they look it up, they are trusting some source or trusting someone else's information. That is still a tribal following, as they have a set of sources that are going to be more likely to trust than others.
Most "facts" aren't shared through well vetted, replicated research. They are given though casual conversation or short internet comments. I'd say you'd be a madman if you take anything you've ever read or heard as fact. The closest you can come to fact is observing things yourself, and even that is flawed.
- jimsimmons 5y agoGreat point. It’s usually “you are disagreeing with me so you don’t understand facts and rationality” when they themselves are making a poor case.
- trees101 5y agothe article itself is an example of that. It's so frustrating to be preached to about "facts" by someone who makes no use of "facts" in their own argument. Same for "logic" and "rationality".
- brankoB 5y agoIn a similar vein, people using scientific facts in non-scientific conversations. The amount of times I've heard "well the SCIENCE tells us..." in a moral debate is mind boggling.
- xboxnolifes 5y agoAgree. Even in scientific conversation I dislike it. "Science" isn't some single entity of facts. It's a process of investigation. It's entirely possible for two scientific studies to contradict. And it's also possible for both of them to be wrong for some reason. Overall, I very much dislike hearing the phrases: - "Science says..." - "Scientists say..." - "THEY say..." Considering the amount of information available to cherry pick from, or people to ask a question to, every one of those is no better than just saying: "this one random person on the internet said...".
- xboxnolifes 5y agoI wanted to edit something in, but it's been too long now. I think a big issue is that people (including me in my original post) conflate the term fact with the term truth. Many things people say are indeed facts, but that doesn't mean they are true (or provable to the receiver). A fact is merely something that is possible to be proven (or disproven). A truth is something that is true; a verifiably proven fact. Simply telling someone facts does not make them truths to the receiver. You have not provided them the ability to prove the facts to be true. You've merely asserted them. So put another way: I may say that it is possible to change people's minds with facts, but you also need to provide the function of turning the fact into a truth. Facts are easy to claim and very abundant. Truths are extremely rare, and for nearly everything we merely work with statistically likely truths.