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.
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…
I have to fight against this tendency to believe past was better almost every day. My mind seems to try to trick me every time i'm making progress in life, bringing memories of a better past, showing why today sucks.
The solution? Reason. I just ask myself: Ok, that was the good part. Now, try to remember the bad ones. Oh you can't? So it's obviously a fake memory pal. There were no such time in my life without difficulties.
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…
I ABSOLUTELY agree with this, and this is completely lost on people. For every study that says coffee is bad there's 10 more that say it's good, simply because people want it to be good, NOT because it's actually good. The problem is, we humans play right into that as if the number's game actually means something - 1 out of 10 studies says something is bad - the other 9 say it's good. So rather than actually work off the truth (the objective fact of whether coffee is good or bad) we go off the numbers instead. Now take coffee and replace that with any number of other things.
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 present…
Because the reality is humans don't really "know" anything the absolute certainty, but there are still ways of assessing which beliefs are more likely to be true than others.
There is always the possibility the findings of a peer reviewed, journal published, replicated study are wrong. They are just more likely to be correct than assertions without such support.
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 present…
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.
> 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…
I ABSOLUTELY agree with this, and this is completely lost on people. For every study that says coffee is bad there's 10 more that say it's good, simply because people want it to be good, NOT because it's actually good. The problem is, we humans play right into that as if the number's game actually means something - 1 out of 10 studies says something is bad - the other 9 say it's good. So rather than actually work off…
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.
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…
I have to fight against this tendency to believe past was better almost every day. My mind seems to try to trick me every time i'm making progress in life, bringing memories of a better past, showing why today sucks. The solution? Reason. I just ask myself: Ok, that was the good part. Now, try to remember the bad ones. Oh you can't? So it's obviously a fake memory pal. There were no such time in my life without diffi…
Yea, also we sometimes remember only bad things. E.g. if we play in poker, we may lose with two aces for a number of times in a row. And because of the emotional frustration we start thinking that two aces are not that good.
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 mo…
Well yeah. If you conflate those things or tie them together, you've basically declared your intent to demand a mile if they give so much as an inch. Which means the only sensible response is to fight tooth and nail every step of the way.
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…
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.
So you're saying that my definition of the term "fact" is wrong...
Fact: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.
So... are you saying that a fact isn't something that's known to be true? Because my understanding of the word "fact" is that it means something indisputable, an underlying truth upon which you can base other truths and know them all to be true. If this is the case, then what can we possibly know with any sense of conviction?