Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#51

Post by nsxwolf » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 5:53 PM UTC

brightball wrote: post #10

Another factor here is when people abuse the word "fact" regularly. If you ever get into a discussion with somebody who claims they've proved their point by citing "facts", then actually follow up on their citations and discover that it doesn't actually say what they think it says it creates an impression of the messenger, not the message. Enough messengers saying the same faulty message over and over and you distrus…

One thing I've noticed related to this - your average global warming skeptic that you talk to in day to day conversations (not entrenched stakeholders on the internet) becomes far more willing to believe in man made climate change once you remind them that they are under no obligation to support or accept any particular policy to mitigate it.

But if you tell them they have to give up this or that lifestyle, or pay more in taxes, or support a one child policy or whatever else you come up with, they instantly become allergic to the facts.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#52

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 5:53 PM UTC

brightball wrote: post #10

Another factor here is when people abuse the word "fact" regularly. If you ever get into a discussion with somebody who claims they've proved their point by citing "facts", then actually follow up on their citations and discover that it doesn't actually say what they think it says it creates an impression of the messenger, not the message. Enough messengers saying the same faulty message over and over and you distrus…

[deleted]

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#53

Post by balabaster » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 5:56 PM UTC

xapata wrote: post #43

coldtea wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then actually follow up on their citations Not to mention that citations are not all they are touted to be. Just because something has been written by someone somewhere doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has been published on a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has the consensus opinion doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Ju…

And amazingly, someone with skin in the game can also be wrong despite years of experience and training.

and amazingly the amount of information that comes out with peer reviewed science that has been repeatable enough to be accepted as fact and advertised as such can be thrown away 15 years later as wrong... how can a fact be wrong? Either it was a fact back then and you were right or you were wrong back then and it wasn't a fact but information supporting a non-factual hypothesis... given how often we see this presented on news programs, newspapers and touted as fact only to have it revoked years later leads us all to question how much we really know about these "facts".

Case in point: Sugar is great, sugar is bad, fat is great, fat is bad, red wine is bad, red wine is good... blah blah blah.

A fact is a fact, indisputable. Yet many of the facts when chased back to first principles seem to have enough ambiguity to beg questions over just how much we really know and how much we just think we know. I have whole days where I question everything I think I know and am still no wiser at the end of the day.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#54

Post by Spellman » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 5:57 PM UTC

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #39

baldfat wrote: post #37

The issue isn't facts. The issue is our worldview. If it is a binary worldview (Good vs Evil) then what we don't agree with is always bad/evil (Black Hat Cowboy) and what we do agree is good/good (White Hat Cowboy). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_white_hat_symbolism_... So when our side makes a mistake we defend and spin till it is okay for us to still think of them as wearing a White Cowboy Hat. Anything go…

That's an extremely oversimplified explanation of the world. In my experience a lot of misunderstanding comes not from lack of facts, but a lack or difference in perspective. Hardly anyone even feels the need to justify their actions, let alone squeeze it into some bizarre cowboy metaphor.

Or, put another way, no one think they're the villain/wrong.

Which aligns with what the studies seem to indicate. Often the strongest objections arise in a subject that we hold very dear as part of our identity.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#55

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 5:59 PM UTC

enord wrote: post #13

The interactionist perspective presented is enlightening. It both motivates and explains many of the classic reasoning snafus that we "suffer" from. In the end our mental artefacts (including beliefs) are just tools, and their value (or "truth") is a function of their utility. If we were to present a 19th century carpenter with a nail gun he would agree upon demonstration; "that is very nice and all, thanks but i'll…

> Beliefs are the same, and a relation to "facts" or "truth" is not a requrement for their utility.

Let's apply a little recursion here, shall we? I gather that you believe what I quoted. But you admit that your belief does not need to have any relation to facts or truth. You believe what you said, because that belief has some utility to you. But why should I believe you?

That is, your view, applied to itself, destroys itself.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#56

Post by mkalygin » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 6:01 PM UTC

I recently was thinking on the similar topic after reading an article about scientific myths most people believe. For example, one of such myths is that humans are genetically predefined and can't be changed through life. It's clear that there are a lot of social, cultural and gender factors impacts on our nature, but still there is such a belief.

So my conclusion was that our reasoning is very restricted. We tend to simplify our thoughts, our memories. And all this stuff is highly dependant on emotions we feel. That's why we like to make our memories brighter than they are, make them more romantic and ideal. Everything in the past was better, etc. That's why we remember facts which are easier to remember and close to our beliefs, sometimes no matter are they true or not.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#57

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 6:02 PM UTC

brightball wrote: post #10

Another factor here is when people abuse the word "fact" regularly. If you ever get into a discussion with somebody who claims they've proved their point by citing "facts", then actually follow up on their citations and discover that it doesn't actually say what they think it says it creates an impression of the messenger, not the message. Enough messengers saying the same faulty message over and over and you distrus…

[deleted]

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#58

Post by corporateslave » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 6:05 PM UTC

mkalygin wrote: post #56

I recently was thinking on the similar topic after reading an article about scientific myths most people believe. For example, one of such myths is that humans are genetically predefined and can't be changed through life. It's clear that there are a lot of social, cultural and gender factors impacts on our nature, but still there is such a belief. So my conclusion was that our reasoning is very restricted. We tend to…

To some degree people are genetically defined. Aside from luck, people are highly genetically determined. The whole basis of evolution is that positive traits are passed on and reflected in offspring, for that to work, people have to be genetically determined. Either you are against the idea of evolution, or you are against the idea of non biological determinism. Of course there is some grey area where life factors to change the course, but for evolution to work, people need to be largely determined by their DNA.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#59

Post by conistonwater » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 6:06 PM UTC

brightball wrote: post #10

Another factor here is when people abuse the word "fact" regularly. If you ever get into a discussion with somebody who claims they've proved their point by citing "facts", then actually follow up on their citations and discover that it doesn't actually say what they think it says it creates an impression of the messenger, not the message. Enough messengers saying the same faulty message over and over and you distrus…

> Enough messengers saying the same faulty message over and over and you distrust the message just because it's been repeated so often.

This seems like a really bad heuristic: it will mislead you any time the consensus opinion actually managed to get it right. It also leaves you wide open to confirmation bias.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#60

Post by jimbokun » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 6:07 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #15

brightball wrote: post #10

Another factor here is when people abuse the word "fact" regularly. If you ever get into a discussion with somebody who claims they've proved their point by citing "facts", then actually follow up on their citations and discover that it doesn't actually say what they think it says it creates an impression of the messenger, not the message. Enough messengers saying the same faulty message over and over and you distrus…

> then actually follow up on their citations Not to mention that citations are not all they are touted to be. Just because something has been written by someone somewhere doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has been published on a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has the consensus opinion doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Ju…

All you are really saying is its impossible to know anything for certain.

Having a citation from a well regarded source is better than having no citation. Peer review is better than no review. There is probably a higher correlation for a statement from an official state agency being true, than a random statement with no attribution.

So yes, a statement can satisfy any of the things you mention, and still not be true. But that doesn't mean those factors can't be helpful in assessing the likelihood of a given assertion.