Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 347 posts

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#91

Post by meheleventyone »

coldtea wrote: post #85
meheleventyone wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this more a distinction between science and science reporting. Coffee is complex and interacts in ways that can be described as good and bad. The press reporting blows by the wind of the press release that day. Hence the Daily Mail and others reporting lots of common things both causing and protecting us against cancer.

> Isn't this more a distinction between science and science reporting In a way yes, but if we include the summaries of findings that scientists deliver to the public/governments/etc as "science reporting", then science reporting is 100% of science as we know it (unless we happen to practice it). Consider dietary advice that has since found to be BS, that was passed in the 70s and 80s as "scientific fact", not just by…

Right but wasn't that advice basically the state of the field at the time? That we know different now doesn't mean the scientists then should have acted on information unavailable to them.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#92

Post by projektir »

I think the problem is that there's often a lot of risk with changing one's mind and not all that much benefit.

How much does being right really help one in their day-to-day life? And there are many ways it could hurt them.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#94

Post by meheleventyone »

coldtea wrote: post #80
meheleventyone wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fundamental to science though. Nothing is ever proven to be true. Scientific facts are contingent and corrigible. Science is just more rigorous than our other methods of establishing facts about reality.

> This is fundamental to science though. Nothing is ever proven to be true. Scientific facts are contingent and corrigible. That's science the abstraction, though. Actual science as practiced, and scientists, claim to know what's really "a fact" all the time.

Scientists will absolutely tell you what they believe to be true based on the available evidence and we colloquially call those facts. So it's both true of science as an abstraction and working science.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#95

Post by projektir »

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…

> For example, one of such myths is that humans are genetically predefined and can't be changed through life.

I don't think you should be calling what continues to be the subject of heavy debate a myth.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#96

Post by theaeolist »

jimbokun wrote: post #60
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…

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.…

Cogito ergo sum res cogitans. Descartes though only one thing is certain: that you can reason, hence that you are a reasoning thing. Not so fast, Descartes.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#97

Post by exclusiv »

coding123 wrote: post #61
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…

Similarly people use the word "science" even if there isn't actually any evidence or "science" behind whatever they're arguing for. Their just using it as their argument's firewall. Unfortunately it's basically a trick you can't get around as us humans don't have the intellectual capacity to know "all science facts" to take down the argument.

So true. There's numerous studies that show we're programmed to just trust those in uniforms, especially lab coats. And given how often science turns out to be wrong, or that we can rarely even reproduce studies and results, you'd think we'd welcome more challenges to what's reported by way of science.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#98

Post by yongjik »

bambax wrote: post #23

> There must be some way, they maintain, to convince people that vaccines are good for kids, and handguns are dangerous. There is: have them been born outside the US. Those two beliefs are specific to Americans; hardly a good example of "humanity" as a whole.

There are antivaxxers outside US, sadly, and different brands of "alt medicines" are popular in many countries.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#99

Post by hinkley »

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…

On a broader view, if one considers how hard it is to get quality in anything, then the majority of things you encounter are going to be of dubious quality to begin with, and population count should factor against the common thing, not for it.

Otherwise, there are more Starbucks so does that mean they have the best coffee? McDonald's has the best burgers? No. They are numerous because they pander, and because of ethically questionable but not illegal business policies.

Why would anything else be different? How often is the popular or loudest choice the right one?

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#100

Post by Diederich »

projektir wrote: post #92

I think the problem is that there's often a lot of risk with changing one's mind and not all that much benefit. How much does being right really help one in their day-to-day life? And there are many ways it could hurt them.

What kinds of risk are you seeing as associated with changing one's mind?
Post reply on HN