Fact is a relative word, like luck or loser. Luck is someone richer than you, and a loser is someone less rich than you. Fact is something more truthy than the relative. There is physics, then there are leaky abstractions of physics and culture. I think honesty in the sense of accuracy is important, rather than the meta question of what is truth.
Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
121–130 of 347 posts
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#122> The fact that both we and it survive proves that it must have some adaptive function No, no, no, absolutely not, no, it doesn't. No. A feature can maintain itself in a population for a number of reasons: - it's neutral or not detrimental enough to drive affected individuals to extinction (ie, to get them killed before they have a chance to reproduce) - it's linked to some other trait that provides actual benefits -…
I don't share your interpretation at all. The gist is that humans are not rational computing machines. And that we can't expect each other to respond rationally to every word spoken or act observed. If you don't see the merit in winning arguments over being correct, uh... I dunno broaden your social circle maybe?
I think the personal attack was unnecessary there.
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#123Another 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 mo…
I find this very revealing: it's easier to argue against an objective claim—even if all the evidence points against you—than it is to argue against a normative claim. So it's easier to deny "global warming exists" than it is to deny "if global warming exists we should make sacrifices to prevent it" even though, abstractly, it should be easier to make a strong case for the first point. Zooming out even more, it's somehow easier to argue against established scientific fact than it is to argue for valuing shorter-term concerns more and longer-term ones less.
Part of this is that if you argue against the first position you might be labeled as uniformed or ignorant, but if you argue against the second position, its supporters will tar you as immoral, evil and generally a bad person.
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#124I guess it should come as no surprise that the comments section for an article called “facts don’t change our minds” would be so disappointing. For me, this article — and many like it that point out how whimsical and feeble our natural, undisciplined cognitive capacities are — are a rally cry to continue the enlightenment project, as best we can and in as personal a way as we can. Years ago I learned that my family m…
> Years ago I learned that my family motto from way back was “through faith we are free”. I found that immediately alienating because for me it was always “through doubt we are free.” From my own experience as a reluctant religious agnostic, I see the faith/doubt-freedom issue as less clear-cut. Some Christians I know appear capable of doing things that I, as an agnostic, cannot. The first thing that comes to mind is…
"The first thing that comes to mind is showing care for people I find unlovable."
Most of my friends describe me as more religious/spiritual than most religious people they know, yet, I consider myself closely aligned to atheism.
One of my good friends (an Anglican) told me about a community activity to promote girls only. I asked why the church was so sexist and he said nobody had challenged it (supposedly they ONLY get government grants if ONLY females are helped!!).
Needless to say, he kicked up a fuss and the church is now split fairly evenly on the topic of "should boys be given ANY support".
When you said about religious people acting selflessly, I had to chuckle. I know some lovely religious people and some prejudiced people. Religion is no judge of character or empathy.
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#125Earlier 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…
If I remember my science training properly "fact" is a synonym for "observation". One interprets facts in order to develop a model or "theory". So facts published in peer reviewed articles probably represent objective reality (if you believe in objective reality and trust the author to record observations accurately); the conclusion in peer reviewed articles (theories for example or statistical associations) should n…
The etymology of fact comes from event.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fact&allowed_in_fra...
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#126I have three recommendations: 1.read "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman 2. think in Bayesian term about statistic when you see the "facts" they claim from a report 3. being okay with the fact that you might waste time and efforts or being wrong on thinking regarding about issues (disclaimer: I am not a psychologist or data scientist)
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#127The 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…
>I feel that people have gotten more and more binary and we need more shades of gray
What about people who think we need more binary thinking and fewer shades of gray? How do you even form a nuanced (gray) argument against that kind of dogmatism? Where do you draw the line against line-drawing without being hypocritical?
This isn't just rhetorical: this is a problem we're struggling with as a society. People are intellectually exhausted and are drawn to ideologies that answer their questions for them in a clear, unambiguous way. We're in an ideological arms race, becoming more polarized and less rational merely as a survival mechanism.
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#128> The fact that both we and it survive proves that it must have some adaptive function No, no, no, absolutely not, no, it doesn't. No. A feature can maintain itself in a population for a number of reasons: - it's neutral or not detrimental enough to drive affected individuals to extinction (ie, to get them killed before they have a chance to reproduce) - it's linked to some other trait that provides actual benefits -…
I suggest a more simple and straightforward explanation for the limitations of "reason": our brain is, in fact, write only.
That seems to be inconsistent with the research described in the article where subjects were asked for an opinion, then in some way required to explain that opinion, and then asked for another opinion on the same issue. People apparently did weaken in their convictions, but only when forced to confront them by examining the details.
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 present…
> repeatable enough to be accepted as fact No. They are accepted as a scientific theory [1]. A scientific fact is "a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence" [2]. The media and general public doesn't really understand the distinction, and tends to call widely-accept scientific theories "facts" and treat them as if they are proven true -- when i…
> No. They are accepted as a scientific theory [1].
Thanks for clarifying that... indeed, I agree with that adjustment.
The problem you highlight is that most people aren't exposed to anything but "this is fact" spewed by the media and don't have the benefit of time or contradictory evidence at hand to decide what is true and what isn't... so even with the ability to think critically, they're bombarded with so many alternative-facts that eventually they begin to believe it too.
Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
#130Another 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…
There are two types of citations. There are, of course, the Wikipedia, CNN, or HuffPo links, which are at best facts mingled with opinion, or, at worst, contextually inaccurate sound bites. Then there are scholarly citations, which consist of scientific data, complete, primary-source media, etc. The latter are the only types of citations I typically take seriously.
Even then, as you point out, there are other things to consider. For example, if a scientist publishes something controversial in a peer-reviewed journal, you still have to wonder what his or her motivations are. Who is funding them? Have their personal biases, or those of their benefactors, tainted their results?
I tend to strive for scholarly citations in my arguments, but in the end, I realize we are all emotional beings, and personal biases and emotions tend to trump knowledge, wisdom, and logic more often than we'd like to admit.