CDZ Fake News/Media Syndrome

[Foxfyre]

What constitutes the truth is not a relative thing. Neither does whether one believes that which is the truth have any bearing on whether it is indeed the truth. The truth may not always be knowable at every time at which one wants to know it; however, that too has nothing to do with what is the truth.

I think there is no truth.

Well, you and I clearly disagree in that regard.

​

Nice illustration of Plato's cave. It really works it out. Very naughty with the religious slant to it!

You can have your own truth, I guess: that's what this alliance business in America today is all about. You just can't have MY truth, that is, inform me that X is true and that I have to believe it because it's, you know, true. I'll just say, no, it's Y all the way. And there is nothing you can really do about that.

There is no truth: there never was. It's all opinion, but that's my opinion. Your opinion is that there is truth, and if you are like the rest of us here, that YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRUTH IS. OBJECTIVELY. VALID FOR EVERYONE. Whether they like it or not. No one will agree with that, however.

So-called "facts" are a subset of the problem and an interesting one. Where they are statistics -- tide tables and such -- we are tempted to make an exception for so-called facts as a sort of truth. However, that just leads to people saying atrocities such as that Trump is [obscenities, obscenities] dipped in Cheetoes and that's a fact! The word fact becomes an emphasizer for someone's opinion that they very, very much want to be recognized as "truth" by whomever they are talking with.

As if. My solution to the fact problem is the same as any other news: I believe the stats I like for whatever reason, and try to recall that they burned Copernicus at the stake, but nowadays we are not so......emphatic about insisting that the sun rises in the East. We still say it, but we think Copernicus may have had a point when he said the sun doesn't go around the Earth. There was a fact issue there, but facts are too often, often wrong.

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

 

[Circe]

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

That is interesting, about your Flat Earth friends. The question is, it seems to me, what to do about this.

I don't think the idea of the Earth being flat is any more wicked or problematic than, oh, Holocaust Denial, or Climate Change Religion, or it being a fact to so many that Hillary was sure to win. So that they sneered at anyone who wasn't as sure of that. Lots of people think the Catholic Church is wonderful; others take a dimmer view because of all the centuries of pedophile attacks, not to mention the Inquisition.

NO beliefs are possible to change -- they may change what they believe, but it sure isn't going to be on my schedule. And it's impertinent to argue. Migod, the idea of somebody trying to change my mind! How rude can people be? I'm not sure all the obscene insults people here throw at me just before I put them on the ignore list are as impertinent as trying to persuade me to some other position --- after all, the obscene insulters are at least accepting that I am as I am! The persuaders are trying to enslave my mind. That's worse.

So I'm okay with people keeping their own truths and their own alliances.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What constitutes the truth is not a relative thing. Neither does whether one believes that which is the truth have any bearing on whether it is indeed the truth. The truth may not always be knowable at every time at which one wants to know it; however, that too has nothing to do with what is the truth.

I think there is no truth.

Well, you and I clearly disagree in that regard.

​

Nice illustration of Plato's cave. It really works it out. Very naughty with the religious slant to it!

You can have your own truth, I guess: that's what this alliance business in America today is all about. You just can't have MY truth, that is, inform me that X is true and that I have to believe it because it's, you know, true. I'll just say, no, it's Y all the way. And there is nothing you can really do about that.

There is no truth: there never was. It's all opinion, but that's my opinion. Your opinion is that there is truth, and if you are like the rest of us here, that YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRUTH IS. OBJECTIVELY. VALID FOR EVERYONE. Whether they like it or not. No one will agree with that, however.

So-called "facts" are a subset of the problem and an interesting one. Where they are statistics -- tide tables and such -- we are tempted to make an exception for so-called facts as a sort of truth. However, that just leads to people saying atrocities such as that Trump is [obscenities, obscenities] dipped in Cheetoes and that's a fact! The word fact becomes an emphasizer for someone's opinion that they very, very much want to be recognized as "truth" by whomever they are talking with.

As if. My solution to the fact problem is the same as any other news: I believe the stats I like for whatever reason, and try to recall that they burned Copernicus at the stake, but nowadays we are not so......emphatic about insisting that the sun rises in the East. We still say it, but we think Copernicus may have had a point when he said the sun doesn't go around the Earth. There was a fact issue there, but facts are too often, often wrong.

Nice illustration of Plato's cave.

So, presumably, you understand the points Plato made in Republic, yet you've made some of the remarks you have in prior posts and several of those that I've quoted below. I'm not intending to be derisive or critical with what I'm about to say, but.....I do not understand how a rational person brings themselves to sincerely say/believe such things as some of what you've written. How does a rational person not ascribe to the reality that at times they are like the guys left of the wall, at other times, like the guys in blue, and at other times, like the guys crawling out of and already outside the cave? No matter which one of those characters one be at any given point in time, what is the truth was, is and remained the same. What changes is one's awareness of the truth, not the truth itself.

Very naughty with the religious slant to it!

OT:

If there's a religious slant to that image, that angle has nothing to do with the point I was making. That said, the place of dogmatic truths in a conversation such as this is not lost on me; I just wasn't aiming to "go there."​

YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRUTH IS. OBJECTIVELY. VALID FOR EVERYONE.

Well, no, that's not at all what I've intimated. (See post 159 and my first paragraph in this post.)

So-called "facts" are a subset of the problem and an interesting one. Where they are statistics -- tide tables and such -- we are tempted to make an exception for so-called facts as a sort of truth.

There is a difference between metrics and statistics. I don't often care which term one uses provided one's remarks make clear that one knows the difference and thus accords due value to any given data point/set, depending on whether it is indeed a metric or a statistic and whether the metric or statistic is the most apt one(s) for the matter under consideration. (A classic example is whether count or proportional metrics be used to evaluate and act in a given way to resolve a given matter.)

My solution to the fact problem is the same as any other news: I believe the stats I like for whatever reason...

Really?​

recall that they burned Copernicus at the stake, but nowadays we are not so......emphatic about insisting that the sun rises in the East. We still say it, but we think Copernicus may have had a point when he said the sun doesn't go around the Earth. There was a fact issue there, but facts are too often, often wrong.

Rightness and wrongness are not properties of facts. Facts simply are; they merely exist.

OT:

"Rise in the east" --> At one point that phrase likely was construed literally. Now, we know that statement is not in any literal sense true; however, we use it. Users of that phrase must know that their use of it is figurative and indicative of an apparent truth, not an actual truth. (Obviously, there are many phrases that are in that way like "rise in the east.")​

 

[usmbguest5318]

What constitutes the truth is not a relative thing. Neither does whether one believes that which is the truth have any bearing on whether it is indeed the truth. The truth may not always be knowable at every time at which one wants to know it; however, that too has nothing to do with what is the truth.

I think there is no truth.

Well, you and I clearly disagree in that regard.

​

Nice illustration of Plato's cave. It really works it out. Very naughty with the religious slant to it!

You can have your own truth, I guess: that's what this alliance business in America today is all about. You just can't have MY truth, that is, inform me that X is true and that I have to believe it because it's, you know, true. I'll just say, no, it's Y all the way. And there is nothing you can really do about that.

There is no truth: there never was. It's all opinion, but that's my opinion. Your opinion is that there is truth, and if you are like the rest of us here, that YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRUTH IS. OBJECTIVELY. VALID FOR EVERYONE. Whether they like it or not. No one will agree with that, however.

So-called "facts" are a subset of the problem and an interesting one. Where they are statistics -- tide tables and such -- we are tempted to make an exception for so-called facts as a sort of truth. However, that just leads to people saying atrocities such as that Trump is [obscenities, obscenities] dipped in Cheetoes and that's a fact! The word fact becomes an emphasizer for someone's opinion that they very, very much want to be recognized as "truth" by whomever they are talking with.

As if. My solution to the fact problem is the same as any other news: I believe the stats I like for whatever reason, and try to recall that they burned Copernicus at the stake, but nowadays we are not so......emphatic about insisting that the sun rises in the East. We still say it, but we think Copernicus may have had a point when he said the sun doesn't go around the Earth. There was a fact issue there, but facts are too often, often wrong.

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

 

[Circe]

No matter which one of those characters one be at any given point in time, what is the truth was, is and remained the same. What changes is one's awareness of the truth, not the truth itself.

"which one of those characters one MAY be..." I think --- I love the subjunctive. It's going direly out of fashion, I hate that.

YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRUTH IS. OBJECTIVELY. VALID FOR EVERYONE.

Well, no, that's not at all what I've intimated. (See post 159 and my first paragraph in this post.)

Okay, I wasn't pointing at you there, you aren't especially dogmatic about specifics, I haven't found. I believe you are saying there is an objective truth and it makes sense to try to find it.

So-called "facts" are a subset of the problem and an interesting one. Where they are statistics -- tide tables and such -- we are tempted to make an exception for so-called facts as a sort of truth.

There is a difference between metrics and statistics. I don't often care which term one uses provided one's remarks make clear that one knows the difference and thus accords due value to any given data point/set, depending on whether it is indeed a metric or a statistic and whether the metric or statistic is the most apt one(s) for the matter under consideration. (A classic example is whether count or proportional metrics be used to evaluate and act in a given way to resolve a given matter.)

Yeah.....actually, that's not a bad point. So you are saying a tide table, or a measuring tape, is a product of metrics. (Whereas statistics are infamous as a modern way to lie.) This is why I believe certain so-called facts when I believe in the people who did the metrics (or even the statistics, but rarely these days) and their measuring implements. Still, there is no use being naïve and over-trusting. Look at the climate change wars: the left would say their measurements and statistics demonstrate IMMINENT DOOM, but I would say to that, hogwash, you made it all up. Which leaves me where I started: I believe it if I believe it, but I don't care to say it's true. Remember the underinflated Boston footballs? Everyone was supposed to believe it was a fact that footballs were all inflated the same, but now we hear they weren't.

My solution to the fact problem is the same as any other news: I believe the stats I like for whatever reason...

Really?

Certainly really. Confirmation bias is what this discussion is all about, from my perspective that people believe what favors their valued alliances. And why shouldn't they? Let's be tolerant.​

recall that they burned Copernicus at the stake, but nowadays we are not so......emphatic about insisting that the sun rises in the East. We still say it, but we think Copernicus may have had a point when he said the sun doesn't go around the Earth. There was a fact issue there, but facts are too often, often wrong.

Rightness and wrongness are not properties of facts. Facts simply are; they merely exist.

That's the philosophical crux, all right. I entirely agree: but only for God. Our facts are different from those of ants, from those of horses, from those of Democrats. God's got the facts, he mooshes all that together, we don't and can't. I'm okay with that. You're still trying to get into God's Mind. That's too big for me.

 

[Foxfyre]

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

That is interesting, about your Flat Earth friends. The question is, it seems to me, what to do about this.

I don't think the idea of the Earth being flat is any more wicked or problematic than, oh, Holocaust Denial, or Climate Change Religion, or it being a fact to so many that Hillary was sure to win. So that they sneered at anyone who wasn't as sure of that. Lots of people think the Catholic Church is wonderful; others take a dimmer view because of all the centuries of pedophile attacks, not to mention the Inquisition.

NO beliefs are possible to change -- they may change what they believe, but it sure isn't going to be on my schedule. And it's impertinent to argue. Migod, the idea of somebody trying to change my mind! How rude can people be? I'm not sure all the obscene insults people here throw at me just before I put them on the ignore list are as impertinent as trying to persuade me to some other position --- after all, the obscene insulters are at least accepting that I am as I am! The persuaders are trying to enslave my mind. That's worse.

So I'm okay with people keeping their own truths and their own alliances.

If I was teaching a science class, it would be important to me that the students holding onto the flat Earth concept be exposed to the truth and be able to answer the questions on the test. It would not be my job to change their beliefs. My job is to be sure they have the correct information to believe and thus have an opportunity to think differently about it should they choose to.

Most of the time on these message boards I am testing my own arguments/beliefs to see if they will hold up. Most of the time they do. But every now and then I am working out a response or expressing an opinion about something when I realize that I cannot support my own opinion/belief with anything substantial. And most of the time--not all --I quietly erase the argument that I had spent some time formulating. It doesn't mean that the something doesn't still feel right to me, but I recognize I cannot make a good case for it. And therein I become open to a better argument/concept.

I like to think this comes from intellectual honesty. More likely it is probably from years of debate teams/coach/judge and also old fashioned training in journalism and investigation that required that I be able to support my theories or statements of fact in coherent ways. I learned to recognize when I have not done that. But even with all that training and experience, I still slip up now and then.

And, though it is rare, I have had my mind changed via an intelligent and well expressed argument of others.

So I would be intellectually dishonest if I didn't admit that I hope by putting out what I strongly believe to be the truth that there are a few intellectually honest folks out there who want to BE right and will change their mind instead of just having their wrong beliefs affirmed. Plus of course it always feels good to be affirmed in your point of view about something.

That is what I want journalism/the media to return to--being right instead of trying to make others believe their wrong, sometimes maliciously wrong, statements are true.

 

[Circe]

If I was teaching a science class, it would be important to me that the students holding onto the flat Earth concept be exposed to the truth and be able to answer the questions on the test. It would not be my job to change their beliefs. My job is to be sure they have the correct information to believe and thus have an opportunity to think differently about it should they choose to.

Nice. That's a good defense of teaching; I see that I attacked that implicitly.

Most of the time on these message boards I am testing my own arguments/beliefs to see if they will hold up.

Sure --- there's a lot of that going around. "I have to see what I write before I know what I think," Evelyn Waugh, IIRC.

More likely it is probably from years of debate teams/coach/judge and also old fashioned training in journalism and investigation that required that I be able to support my theories or statements of fact in coherent ways.

Where have they gone, the old-time journalists we believed in and felt we could believe in? It's too bad what has happened.

And, though it is rare, I have had my mind changed via an intelligent and well expressed argument of others.

Rare is right, for me, but I say so when it happens. And then worry that my correspondent has fainted dead away.

So I would be intellectually dishonest if I didn't admit that I hope by putting out what I strongly believe to be the truth that there are a few intellectually honest folks out there who want to BE right and will change their mind instead of just having their wrong beliefs affirmed.

Oh, I know --- don't read my posts on any other forum if you believe I am as tolerant of other opinions as I pretend here! I in fact don't expect anyone to change their opinions because of me, but when the topic is hot (I'm being particularly bad in one of those men vs women threads) I enjoy firing away, full-bore, heavy ammo.

That is what I want journalism/the media to return to--being right instead of trying to make others believe their wrong, sometimes maliciously wrong, statements are true.

I see you miss it too, the old standards of reporting. Truth! I've had to give up the whole concept. Think with work-arounds.

 

[Foxfyre]

What constitutes the truth is not a relative thing. Neither does whether one believes that which is the truth have any bearing on whether it is indeed the truth. The truth may not always be knowable at every time at which one wants to know it; however, that too has nothing to do with what is the truth.

I think there is no truth.

Well, you and I clearly disagree in that regard.

​

Nice illustration of Plato's cave. It really works it out. Very naughty with the religious slant to it!

You can have your own truth, I guess: that's what this alliance business in America today is all about. You just can't have MY truth, that is, inform me that X is true and that I have to believe it because it's, you know, true. I'll just say, no, it's Y all the way. And there is nothing you can really do about that.

There is no truth: there never was. It's all opinion, but that's my opinion. Your opinion is that there is truth, and if you are like the rest of us here, that YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRUTH IS. OBJECTIVELY. VALID FOR EVERYONE. Whether they like it or not. No one will agree with that, however.

So-called "facts" are a subset of the problem and an interesting one. Where they are statistics -- tide tables and such -- we are tempted to make an exception for so-called facts as a sort of truth. However, that just leads to people saying atrocities such as that Trump is [obscenities, obscenities] dipped in Cheetoes and that's a fact! The word fact becomes an emphasizer for someone's opinion that they very, very much want to be recognized as "truth" by whomever they are talking with.

As if. My solution to the fact problem is the same as any other news: I believe the stats I like for whatever reason, and try to recall that they burned Copernicus at the stake, but nowadays we are not so......emphatic about insisting that the sun rises in the East. We still say it, but we think Copernicus may have had a point when he said the sun doesn't go around the Earth. There was a fact issue there, but facts are too often, often wrong.

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban.

It is that kind of thing that I believe I correctly see as deliberate and intentional misrepresenting of the facts of a story and a deliberate attempt to discredit the President whom most of the mainstream media hates/opposes.

And it is that kind of thing that just drives me nuts.

 

[Foxfyre]

We've reached a point where we will only believe "news" items that we fancy, and where we can maintain a safe ideological space from that which we don't.

We're doing this to ourselves. This is destructive for a republic, and we're watching the resulting decay in real time. As we point the finger at the "other side". As usual.
.

Your post and that below yours by task0778 are both saying something similar. You imply that news can be and is "truth," but that idea is being challenged today and appropriately so.

I think there is no truth. There are only alliances. We are not interested in "truth," we are interested in our allies, and that is the "news" we want, info that helps our alliances. The news media used to have all sorts of rules and rituals to avoid this alliance thing and present what they called "facts" (opinions that want to be privileged and believed). But the news media went over to the dark side with the rest of the public over the last couple decades and during 2016, flump! it turned over completely into fake news favoring their leftwing allies, and since the right out-numbered them in critical areas, they turned out wrong about pretty much everything they "reported."

Unlike you, I am okay with all of this. It's what happened in the 1850s, too, and you can't stuff a genie back into its bottle. The nation is already disunited and on the us-vs-them system, and trying to force people to read fake news they have no reason at all to believe isn't going to stop the drift (flood) to two different opposing sides.

I'm not a big fan of the current usage of the word "Truth". Today, all it means is "stuff that I agree with".

If we can't agree on facts, and as long as we're literally dividing ourselves by the agenda of the "news" we're exposing ourselves to, our divisions will increase. The internet and talk radio have changed everything; so this is a relatively recent phenomenon.
.

For sure the internet and talk radio are a relatively new phenomenon. Talk radio especially exploded onto the scene in the mid 1980's as the counter balance against a media that was increasingly populated with leftists who were abandoning the journalistic codes of ethics and were in fact more and more editorializing their opinions rather than just giving the facts--all the facts available--and allowing the readers to draw their own conclusions.

Fox News on cable emerged by deviating from the norm and selling themselves by giving all the sides to the news stories and allowing their audience to draw their own conclusions. And oh my how they have been reviled by the left because they do.

For sure there are idiots and irrational ideologues on the right, but for the most part, the right doesn't try to silence the leftist media. They just use stubborn facts to discredit it when the leftist media gets it wrong.

But these days anybody who is politically incorrect and/or who dares to state the best available truth about anything that doesn't align with the leftist version of the story will be maligned and demonized and labeled with all manner of ugly adjectives by those who don't want to believe that truth. The errant person/entity must be punished, silenced, and/or destroyed.

And that my friends, is a very very dangerously thing and responsible Americans everywhere, regardless of their ideology or political preferences, should be refusing to tolerate it wherever it exists.

 

[usmbguest5318]

No matter which one of those characters one be at any given point in time, what is the truth was, is and remained the same. What changes is one's awareness of the truth, not the truth itself.

"which one of those characters one MAY be..." I think --- I love the subjunctive. It's going direly out of fashion, I hate that.

YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRUTH IS. OBJECTIVELY. VALID FOR EVERYONE.

Well, no, that's not at all what I've intimated. (See post 159 and my first paragraph in this post.)

Okay, I wasn't pointing at you there, you aren't especially dogmatic about specifics, I haven't found. I believe you are saying there is an objective truth and it makes sense to try to find it.

So-called "facts" are a subset of the problem and an interesting one. Where they are statistics -- tide tables and such -- we are tempted to make an exception for so-called facts as a sort of truth.

There is a difference between metrics and statistics. I don't often care which term one uses provided one's remarks make clear that one knows the difference and thus accords due value to any given data point/set, depending on whether it is indeed a metric or a statistic and whether the metric or statistic is the most apt one(s) for the matter under consideration. (A classic example is whether count or proportional metrics be used to evaluate and act in a given way to resolve a given matter.)

Yeah.....actually, that's not a bad point. So you are saying a tide table, or a measuring tape, is a product of metrics. (Whereas statistics are infamous as a modern way to lie.) This is why I believe certain so-called facts when I believe in the people who did the metrics (or even the statistics, but rarely these days) and their measuring implements. Still, there is no use being naïve and over-trusting. Look at the climate change wars: the left would say their measurements and statistics demonstrate IMMINENT DOOM, but I would say to that, hogwash, you made it all up. Which leaves me where I started: I believe it if I believe it, but I don't care to say it's true. Remember the underinflated Boston footballs? Everyone was supposed to believe it was a fact that footballs were all inflated the same, but now we hear they weren't.

My solution to the fact problem is the same as any other news: I believe the stats I like for whatever reason...

Really?

Certainly really. Confirmation bias is what this discussion is all about, from my perspective that people believe what favors their valued alliances. And why shouldn't they? Let's be tolerant.​

recall that they burned Copernicus at the stake, but nowadays we are not so......emphatic about insisting that the sun rises in the East. We still say it, but we think Copernicus may have had a point when he said the sun doesn't go around the Earth. There was a fact issue there, but facts are too often, often wrong.

Rightness and wrongness are not properties of facts. Facts simply are; they merely exist.

That's the philosophical crux, all right. I entirely agree: but only for God. Our facts are different from those of ants, from those of horses, from those of Democrats. God's got the facts, he mooshes all that together, we don't and can't. I'm okay with that. You're still trying to get into God's Mind. That's too big for me.

"which one of those characters one MAY be..." I think --- I love the subjunctive. It's going direly out of fashion, I hate that.

OT:

I agree that it's losing favor among English speakers.

There are no two ways about it; I often use the subjunctive. It conveys meaning, so I use it.

To this day, I remember Momma telling me and my siblings that "only the most beautiful of speakers use the subjunctive mode." For weeks thereafter the lot of us fell all over ourselves conjugating and constructing subjunctive mood sentences in an effort to earn some small measure more of Momma's approbation. LOL So things go among kids.

Of course, some years later, it became common to hear folks simply not conjugate the infinitive "to be." Upon often enough hearing that done, Momma, who is kind to a fault, one day voiced her confusion, asking us why so many people "these days" conjugate in the subjunctive when it's obvious that the indicative is the appropriate mood for the idea they expressed.

We had the "pleasure" of informing Momma that most of those folks don't know they are conjugating in the subjunctive, don't know how to conjugate in the indicative present tense, and that they are not at all using the subjunctive mood. LOL Her response was among the few times Momma swore: "What the 'Sam Hill' are you talking about? How the hell does one not know how and when to conjugate in the damned present indicative?" LOL​

I believe you are saying there is an objective truth and it makes sense to try to find it.

That is absolutely among the points I've made.

So you are saying a tide table, or a measuring tape, is a product of metrics.

With regard to what I suspect you mean, yes. The data in a tide table are metrics. A measuring tape is a tool used to obtain one or more distance metrics. I suspect a measuring tape in its manufacture is a product of some metric(s).

Remember the underinflated Boston footballs? Everyone was supposed to believe it was a fact that footballs were all inflated the same, but now we hear they weren't.

Well, to the best of my knowledge, what everyone was supposed to have believed is that the balls were inflated within the limits defined in the NFL's rulebook. The rules do not define a specific ball inflation psi; they define a range; thus expecting the balls were "all inflated the same" was a mistaken expectation held by the individuals who do so believe.

Players, fans, and perhaps others may have concluded that the balls were all inflated as per the game rules. To the extent they did so conclude, their conclusion proved later to be inaccurate because at least one ball was not inflated thus. Their conclusion was inaccurate because they assumed/premised that the ball handlers would/had adhere(-ed) to the rules. Clearly, the premise was false.

The truth existed and never didn't exist, regardless of what folks thought about the status of the balls' inflation. The argument/reasoning in peoples' minds is what was shown to be errant, not the truth.

Might the balls at one point have been inflated within the limits of the rules? They may have been, but when they were measured, at least one of them was not. Of the balls that were underinflated, were any of them underinflated while they were being used? Well, there was and remains no way to deductively determine whether they were; the best we can do is use the available evidence to inductively evaluate the likelihood of whether they were or were not underinflated while they were in use.

Certainly really. Confirmation bias is what this discussion is all about, from my perspective that people believe what favors their valued alliances. And why shouldn't they? Let's be tolerant.

Sorry. I will never tolerate evaluations and conclusions jaundiced with confirmation bias.

It's quite difficult for me to be sure another's cognitive processes and conclusions suffer from confirmation bias, but it's not at all hard for me to shoo that enemy of the intellect from my own analysis.

That's the philosophical crux, all right. I entirely agree: but only for God. Our facts are different from those of ants, from those of horses, from those of Democrats. God's got the facts, he mooshes all that together, we don't and can't. I'm okay with that. You're still trying to get into God's Mind. That's too big for me.

OT:

Well, now I suppose I understand how you came to notice religious allusion in the cave image I earlier posted.​

 

[usmbguest5318]

What constitutes the truth is not a relative thing. Neither does whether one believes that which is the truth have any bearing on whether it is indeed the truth. The truth may not always be knowable at every time at which one wants to know it; however, that too has nothing to do with what is the truth.

I think there is no truth.

Well, you and I clearly disagree in that regard.

​

Nice illustration of Plato's cave. It really works it out. Very naughty with the religious slant to it!

You can have your own truth, I guess: that's what this alliance business in America today is all about. You just can't have MY truth, that is, inform me that X is true and that I have to believe it because it's, you know, true. I'll just say, no, it's Y all the way. And there is nothing you can really do about that.

There is no truth: there never was. It's all opinion, but that's my opinion. Your opinion is that there is truth, and if you are like the rest of us here, that YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRUTH IS. OBJECTIVELY. VALID FOR EVERYONE. Whether they like it or not. No one will agree with that, however.

So-called "facts" are a subset of the problem and an interesting one. Where they are statistics -- tide tables and such -- we are tempted to make an exception for so-called facts as a sort of truth. However, that just leads to people saying atrocities such as that Trump is [obscenities, obscenities] dipped in Cheetoes and that's a fact! The word fact becomes an emphasizer for someone's opinion that they very, very much want to be recognized as "truth" by whomever they are talking with.

As if. My solution to the fact problem is the same as any other news: I believe the stats I like for whatever reason, and try to recall that they burned Copernicus at the stake, but nowadays we are not so......emphatic about insisting that the sun rises in the East. We still say it, but we think Copernicus may have had a point when he said the sun doesn't go around the Earth. There was a fact issue there, but facts are too often, often wrong.

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban.

It is that kind of thing that I believe I correctly see as deliberate and intentional misrepresenting of the facts of a story and a deliberate attempt to discredit the President whom most of the mainstream media hates/opposes.

And it is that kind of thing that just drives me nuts.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)​

Seriously? That's your response to my illustrating a valid yet unsound argument? Please tell me that is not what you truly meant to say...the links in my post are there for a reason. Did you click on them?

Edit:

Don't take the above the wrong way. It is an expression of disappointment, not of anger or ridicule.​

 

[usmbguest5318]

What constitutes the truth is not a relative thing. Neither does whether one believes that which is the truth have any bearing on whether it is indeed the truth. The truth may not always be knowable at every time at which one wants to know it; however, that too has nothing to do with what is the truth.

I think there is no truth.

Well, you and I clearly disagree in that regard.

​

Nice illustration of Plato's cave. It really works it out. Very naughty with the religious slant to it!

You can have your own truth, I guess: that's what this alliance business in America today is all about. You just can't have MY truth, that is, inform me that X is true and that I have to believe it because it's, you know, true. I'll just say, no, it's Y all the way. And there is nothing you can really do about that.

There is no truth: there never was. It's all opinion, but that's my opinion. Your opinion is that there is truth, and if you are like the rest of us here, that YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRUTH IS. OBJECTIVELY. VALID FOR EVERYONE. Whether they like it or not. No one will agree with that, however.

So-called "facts" are a subset of the problem and an interesting one. Where they are statistics -- tide tables and such -- we are tempted to make an exception for so-called facts as a sort of truth. However, that just leads to people saying atrocities such as that Trump is [obscenities, obscenities] dipped in Cheetoes and that's a fact! The word fact becomes an emphasizer for someone's opinion that they very, very much want to be recognized as "truth" by whomever they are talking with.

As if. My solution to the fact problem is the same as any other news: I believe the stats I like for whatever reason, and try to recall that they burned Copernicus at the stake, but nowadays we are not so......emphatic about insisting that the sun rises in the East. We still say it, but we think Copernicus may have had a point when he said the sun doesn't go around the Earth. There was a fact issue there, but facts are too often, often wrong.

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban.

It is that kind of thing that I believe I correctly see as deliberate and intentional misrepresenting of the facts of a story and a deliberate attempt to discredit the President whom most of the mainstream media hates/opposes.

And it is that kind of thing that just drives me nuts.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

For the point I made, that validity can exist absent soundness, there are multiple ways "it" can go. Validity is a function of an argument's structure, not of the truth/accuracy of its premises or conclusions. That that is the case is why I included the two links I did, both of which make that point. That is also why I asked in post 171 whether you clicked on them (and, of course, read the content found at the linked site(s)). That it seems you didn't click either link and read the content found there is why I'm disappointed. I thought better of you.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

That is interesting, about your Flat Earth friends. The question is, it seems to me, what to do about this.

I don't think the idea of the Earth being flat is any more wicked or problematic than, oh, Holocaust Denial, or Climate Change Religion, or it being a fact to so many that Hillary was sure to win. So that they sneered at anyone who wasn't as sure of that. Lots of people think the Catholic Church is wonderful; others take a dimmer view because of all the centuries of pedophile attacks, not to mention the Inquisition.

NO beliefs are possible to change -- they may change what they believe, but it sure isn't going to be on my schedule. And it's impertinent to argue. Migod, the idea of somebody trying to change my mind! How rude can people be? I'm not sure all the obscene insults people here throw at me just before I put them on the ignore list are as impertinent as trying to persuade me to some other position --- after all, the obscene insulters are at least accepting that I am as I am! The persuaders are trying to enslave my mind. That's worse.

So I'm okay with people keeping their own truths and their own alliances.

If I was teaching a science class, it would be important to me that the students holding onto the flat Earth concept be exposed to the truth and be able to answer the questions on the test. It would not be my job to change their beliefs. My job is to be sure they have the correct information to believe and thus have an opportunity to think differently about it should they choose to.

Most of the time on these message boards I am testing my own arguments/beliefs to see if they will hold up. Most of the time they do. But every now and then I am working out a response or expressing an opinion about something when I realize that I cannot support my own opinion/belief with anything substantial. And most of the time--not all --I quietly erase the argument that I had spent some time formulating. It doesn't mean that the something doesn't still feel right to me, but I recognize I cannot make a good case for it. And therein I become open to a better argument/concept.

I like to think this comes from intellectual honesty. More likely it is probably from years of debate teams/coach/judge and also old fashioned training in journalism and investigation that required that I be able to support my theories or statements of fact in coherent ways. I learned to recognize when I have not done that. But even with all that training and experience, I still slip up now and then.

And, though it is rare, I have had my mind changed via an intelligent and well expressed argument of others.

So I would be intellectually dishonest if I didn't admit that I hope by putting out what I strongly believe to be the truth that there are a few intellectually honest folks out there who want to BE right and will change their mind instead of just having their wrong beliefs affirmed. Plus of course it always feels good to be affirmed in your point of view about something.

That is what I want journalism/the media to return to--being right instead of trying to make others believe their wrong, sometimes maliciously wrong, statements are true.

If I was teaching a science class, it would be important to me that the students holding onto the flat Earth concept be exposed to the truth and be able to answer the questions on the test. It would not be my job to change their beliefs.

Agreed.

Most of the time on these message boards I am testing my own arguments/beliefs to see if they will hold up.

OT:

LOL. Given the quality of remarks I most often see on this board, that's not a terribly rigorous test, IMO. LOL Perhaps other message boards have many members who routinely deliver markedly higher quality content than is typical here.​

It doesn't mean that the something doesn't still feel right to me, but I recognize I cannot make a good case for it.

Well, there's plenty that feels right to me, and that I had rather be right, yet I know isn't right and thus don't ascribe to it. All sorts of things are emotionally satisfying; that they are has nothing to do with their soundness as conclusions and courses of action.

I like to think this comes from intellectual honesty. More likely it is probably from years of debate

Intellectual honesty is wherefrom one finds the will to challenge and alter one's conclusions. Years of debate are merely one of the ways one obtains practice at doing so, as well as obtaining practice with developing increasingly more sound arguments and recognizing unsound ones.

though it is rare, I have had my mind changed via an intelligent and well expressed argument of others.

Well, without referring specifically to you and your behavior (I don't know you well enough to so refer), people having zounds and no intellectual integrity can truthfully say the same thing. Very bight people and utter fools can too. The frequency of one's mind changing is immaterial; why one changes or doesn't change one's mind is what matters.

I think that the smartest people are the ones who are most often wrong. I think that because I think only very bright people are intellectually curious enough to frequently push the envelope enough and rigorously enough to find out what is and is not so. Doing so means, however, that one oten risks being wrong. That's okay to do/be, however, because discovering the truth is more valuable to everyone than is one's being right.

That is what I want journalism/the media to return to--being right instead of trying to make others believe their wrong, sometimes maliciously wrong, statements are true.

I don't see that news journalists have ever swayed from that principle. News journalists may at different times wear different "hats." At five o'clock they may report the news, making them news reporters, and at 5:02 they may be news commentators.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If I was teaching a science class, it would be important to me that the students holding onto the flat Earth concept be exposed to the truth and be able to answer the questions on the test. It would not be my job to change their beliefs. My job is to be sure they have the correct information to believe and thus have an opportunity to think differently about it should they choose to.

Nice. That's a good defense of teaching; I see that I attacked that implicitly.

Most of the time on these message boards I am testing my own arguments/beliefs to see if they will hold up.

Sure --- there's a lot of that going around. "I have to see what I write before I know what I think," Evelyn Waugh, IIRC.

More likely it is probably from years of debate teams/coach/judge and also old fashioned training in journalism and investigation that required that I be able to support my theories or statements of fact in coherent ways.

Where have they gone, the old-time journalists we believed in and felt we could believe in? It's too bad what has happened.

And, though it is rare, I have had my mind changed via an intelligent and well expressed argument of others.

Rare is right, for me, but I say so when it happens. And then worry that my correspondent has fainted dead away.

So I would be intellectually dishonest if I didn't admit that I hope by putting out what I strongly believe to be the truth that there are a few intellectually honest folks out there who want to BE right and will change their mind instead of just having their wrong beliefs affirmed.

Oh, I know --- don't read my posts on any other forum if you believe I am as tolerant of other opinions as I pretend here! I in fact don't expect anyone to change their opinions because of me, but when the topic is hot (I'm being particularly bad in one of those men vs women threads) I enjoy firing away, full-bore, heavy ammo.

That is what I want journalism/the media to return to--being right instead of trying to make others believe their wrong, sometimes maliciously wrong, statements are true.

I see you miss it too, the old standards of reporting. Truth! I've had to give up the whole concept. Think with work-arounds.

I see you miss it too, the old standards of reporting. Truth! I've had to give up the whole concept. Think with work-arounds.

The "old" standard remain. New standards have been added to them. There's nothing amiss about that.

 

[Foxfyre]

What constitutes the truth is not a relative thing. Neither does whether one believes that which is the truth have any bearing on whether it is indeed the truth. The truth may not always be knowable at every time at which one wants to know it; however, that too has nothing to do with what is the truth.

Well, you and I clearly disagree in that regard.

​

Nice illustration of Plato's cave. It really works it out. Very naughty with the religious slant to it!

You can have your own truth, I guess: that's what this alliance business in America today is all about. You just can't have MY truth, that is, inform me that X is true and that I have to believe it because it's, you know, true. I'll just say, no, it's Y all the way. And there is nothing you can really do about that.

There is no truth: there never was. It's all opinion, but that's my opinion. Your opinion is that there is truth, and if you are like the rest of us here, that YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRUTH IS. OBJECTIVELY. VALID FOR EVERYONE. Whether they like it or not. No one will agree with that, however.

So-called "facts" are a subset of the problem and an interesting one. Where they are statistics -- tide tables and such -- we are tempted to make an exception for so-called facts as a sort of truth. However, that just leads to people saying atrocities such as that Trump is [obscenities, obscenities] dipped in Cheetoes and that's a fact! The word fact becomes an emphasizer for someone's opinion that they very, very much want to be recognized as "truth" by whomever they are talking with.

As if. My solution to the fact problem is the same as any other news: I believe the stats I like for whatever reason, and try to recall that they burned Copernicus at the stake, but nowadays we are not so......emphatic about insisting that the sun rises in the East. We still say it, but we think Copernicus may have had a point when he said the sun doesn't go around the Earth. There was a fact issue there, but facts are too often, often wrong.

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban.

It is that kind of thing that I believe I correctly see as deliberate and intentional misrepresenting of the facts of a story and a deliberate attempt to discredit the President whom most of the mainstream media hates/opposes.

And it is that kind of thing that just drives me nuts.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)​

Seriously? That's your response to my illustrating a valid yet unsound argument? Please tell me that is not what you truly meant to say...the links in my post are there for a reason. Did you click on them?

Edit:

Don't take the above the wrong way. It is an expression of disappointment, not of anger or ridicule.​

I did not mean to criticize your illustration, but only to provide one that is what the fake news media so often does. It isn't that they necessarily get the facts wrong--though they too often do that--but it is their way too often unsupportable interpretation of what the facts mean that makes it fake news.

Example: Trump fired Comey. That's a fact.
The way he did it was not the best way to do it. That's a fact.
The timing of it was unfortunate. That's a fact.

What is not a fact but is promoted as one by the fake news and those parroting it is that Trump fired Comey to stop the Russian investigation. There is absolutely zero proof or even probable rationale for that. And they interpreted, without any foundation or further exploration to verify their impression, that when Trump said he did consider the Russian investigation in his decision to fire Comey, that he was admitting he did it to obstruct the investigation. Which considering everything else is absurd on the face of it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Nice illustration of Plato's cave. It really works it out. Very naughty with the religious slant to it!

You can have your own truth, I guess: that's what this alliance business in America today is all about. You just can't have MY truth, that is, inform me that X is true and that I have to believe it because it's, you know, true. I'll just say, no, it's Y all the way. And there is nothing you can really do about that.

There is no truth: there never was. It's all opinion, but that's my opinion. Your opinion is that there is truth, and if you are like the rest of us here, that YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRUTH IS. OBJECTIVELY. VALID FOR EVERYONE. Whether they like it or not. No one will agree with that, however.

So-called "facts" are a subset of the problem and an interesting one. Where they are statistics -- tide tables and such -- we are tempted to make an exception for so-called facts as a sort of truth. However, that just leads to people saying atrocities such as that Trump is [obscenities, obscenities] dipped in Cheetoes and that's a fact! The word fact becomes an emphasizer for someone's opinion that they very, very much want to be recognized as "truth" by whomever they are talking with.

As if. My solution to the fact problem is the same as any other news: I believe the stats I like for whatever reason, and try to recall that they burned Copernicus at the stake, but nowadays we are not so......emphatic about insisting that the sun rises in the East. We still say it, but we think Copernicus may have had a point when he said the sun doesn't go around the Earth. There was a fact issue there, but facts are too often, often wrong.

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban.

It is that kind of thing that I believe I correctly see as deliberate and intentional misrepresenting of the facts of a story and a deliberate attempt to discredit the President whom most of the mainstream media hates/opposes.

And it is that kind of thing that just drives me nuts.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)​

Seriously? That's your response to my illustrating a valid yet unsound argument? Please tell me that is not what you truly meant to say...the links in my post are there for a reason. Did you click on them?

Edit:

Don't take the above the wrong way. It is an expression of disappointment, not of anger or ridicule.​

I did not mean to criticize your illustration, but only to provide one that is what the fake news media so often does. It isn't that they necessarily get the facts wrong--though they too often do that--but it is their way too often unsupportable interpretation of what the facts mean that makes it fake news.

I did not mean to criticize your illustration, but only to provide one that is what the fake news media so often does.

Okay. Fair enough and understood.

it is their way too often unsupportable interpretation of what the facts mean that makes it fake news.

Interpretation of what the facts imply, portend, contradict, etc. is by definition commentary on the news. As commentary, it is not news; thus it is neither fake news nor not-fake news. As it's not news at all, what it is is something other than news. It's not even trying to be news, yet folks who call it seem to think otherwise and make themselves look asinine by calling it fake news.

 

[Foxfyre]

What constitutes the truth is not a relative thing. Neither does whether one believes that which is the truth have any bearing on whether it is indeed the truth. The truth may not always be knowable at every time at which one wants to know it; however, that too has nothing to do with what is the truth.

Well, you and I clearly disagree in that regard.

​

Nice illustration of Plato's cave. It really works it out. Very naughty with the religious slant to it!

You can have your own truth, I guess: that's what this alliance business in America today is all about. You just can't have MY truth, that is, inform me that X is true and that I have to believe it because it's, you know, true. I'll just say, no, it's Y all the way. And there is nothing you can really do about that.

There is no truth: there never was. It's all opinion, but that's my opinion. Your opinion is that there is truth, and if you are like the rest of us here, that YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRUTH IS. OBJECTIVELY. VALID FOR EVERYONE. Whether they like it or not. No one will agree with that, however.

So-called "facts" are a subset of the problem and an interesting one. Where they are statistics -- tide tables and such -- we are tempted to make an exception for so-called facts as a sort of truth. However, that just leads to people saying atrocities such as that Trump is [obscenities, obscenities] dipped in Cheetoes and that's a fact! The word fact becomes an emphasizer for someone's opinion that they very, very much want to be recognized as "truth" by whomever they are talking with.

As if. My solution to the fact problem is the same as any other news: I believe the stats I like for whatever reason, and try to recall that they burned Copernicus at the stake, but nowadays we are not so......emphatic about insisting that the sun rises in the East. We still say it, but we think Copernicus may have had a point when he said the sun doesn't go around the Earth. There was a fact issue there, but facts are too often, often wrong.

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban.

It is that kind of thing that I believe I correctly see as deliberate and intentional misrepresenting of the facts of a story and a deliberate attempt to discredit the President whom most of the mainstream media hates/opposes.

And it is that kind of thing that just drives me nuts.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

For the point I made, that validity can exist absent soundness, there are multiple ways "it" can go. Validity is a function of an argument's structure, not of the truth/accuracy of its premises or conclusions. That that is the case is why I included the two links I did, both of which make that point. That is also why I asked in post 171 whether you clicked on them (and, of course, read the content found at the linked site(s)). That it seems you didn't click either link and read the content found there is why I'm disappointed. I thought better of you.

I didn't click on any links. I was expressing my own opinion re how the fake news media operates. I was adding to the conversation with no intent to rebut what you said. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. It was not my intent.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Nice illustration of Plato's cave. It really works it out. Very naughty with the religious slant to it!

You can have your own truth, I guess: that's what this alliance business in America today is all about. You just can't have MY truth, that is, inform me that X is true and that I have to believe it because it's, you know, true. I'll just say, no, it's Y all the way. And there is nothing you can really do about that.

There is no truth: there never was. It's all opinion, but that's my opinion. Your opinion is that there is truth, and if you are like the rest of us here, that YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRUTH IS. OBJECTIVELY. VALID FOR EVERYONE. Whether they like it or not. No one will agree with that, however.

So-called "facts" are a subset of the problem and an interesting one. Where they are statistics -- tide tables and such -- we are tempted to make an exception for so-called facts as a sort of truth. However, that just leads to people saying atrocities such as that Trump is [obscenities, obscenities] dipped in Cheetoes and that's a fact! The word fact becomes an emphasizer for someone's opinion that they very, very much want to be recognized as "truth" by whomever they are talking with.

As if. My solution to the fact problem is the same as any other news: I believe the stats I like for whatever reason, and try to recall that they burned Copernicus at the stake, but nowadays we are not so......emphatic about insisting that the sun rises in the East. We still say it, but we think Copernicus may have had a point when he said the sun doesn't go around the Earth. There was a fact issue there, but facts are too often, often wrong.

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban.

It is that kind of thing that I believe I correctly see as deliberate and intentional misrepresenting of the facts of a story and a deliberate attempt to discredit the President whom most of the mainstream media hates/opposes.

And it is that kind of thing that just drives me nuts.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

For the point I made, that validity can exist absent soundness, there are multiple ways "it" can go. Validity is a function of an argument's structure, not of the truth/accuracy of its premises or conclusions. That that is the case is why I included the two links I did, both of which make that point. That is also why I asked in post 171 whether you clicked on them (and, of course, read the content found at the linked site(s)). That it seems you didn't click either link and read the content found there is why I'm disappointed. I thought better of you.

I didn't click on any links. I was expressing my own opinion re how the fake news media operates. I was adding to the conversation with no intent to rebut what you said. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. It was not my intent.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings. It was not my intent.

First, there's nothing to apologize for. Second, my feelings were not and are not hurt. As I said, I was disappointed, not hurt. Third, my disappointment is with myself for having expected that you'd respond to me in a contextually germane way and telling me that "such and such" is how it's supposed to go when "such and such" wasn't ever part of anything I wrote made clear to me that my expectations were excessive. I don't know you or anyone else here, so I am the only person in whom I can be disappointed re: conversations here. The disappointment results from my having misjudged someone here, not because they are who they are.

 

[Foxfyre]

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

That is interesting, about your Flat Earth friends. The question is, it seems to me, what to do about this.

I don't think the idea of the Earth being flat is any more wicked or problematic than, oh, Holocaust Denial, or Climate Change Religion, or it being a fact to so many that Hillary was sure to win. So that they sneered at anyone who wasn't as sure of that. Lots of people think the Catholic Church is wonderful; others take a dimmer view because of all the centuries of pedophile attacks, not to mention the Inquisition.

NO beliefs are possible to change -- they may change what they believe, but it sure isn't going to be on my schedule. And it's impertinent to argue. Migod, the idea of somebody trying to change my mind! How rude can people be? I'm not sure all the obscene insults people here throw at me just before I put them on the ignore list are as impertinent as trying to persuade me to some other position --- after all, the obscene insulters are at least accepting that I am as I am! The persuaders are trying to enslave my mind. That's worse.

So I'm okay with people keeping their own truths and their own alliances.

If I was teaching a science class, it would be important to me that the students holding onto the flat Earth concept be exposed to the truth and be able to answer the questions on the test. It would not be my job to change their beliefs. My job is to be sure they have the correct information to believe and thus have an opportunity to think differently about it should they choose to.

Most of the time on these message boards I am testing my own arguments/beliefs to see if they will hold up. Most of the time they do. But every now and then I am working out a response or expressing an opinion about something when I realize that I cannot support my own opinion/belief with anything substantial. And most of the time--not all --I quietly erase the argument that I had spent some time formulating. It doesn't mean that the something doesn't still feel right to me, but I recognize I cannot make a good case for it. And therein I become open to a better argument/concept.

I like to think this comes from intellectual honesty. More likely it is probably from years of debate teams/coach/judge and also old fashioned training in journalism and investigation that required that I be able to support my theories or statements of fact in coherent ways. I learned to recognize when I have not done that. But even with all that training and experience, I still slip up now and then.

And, though it is rare, I have had my mind changed via an intelligent and well expressed argument of others.

So I would be intellectually dishonest if I didn't admit that I hope by putting out what I strongly believe to be the truth that there are a few intellectually honest folks out there who want to BE right and will change their mind instead of just having their wrong beliefs affirmed. Plus of course it always feels good to be affirmed in your point of view about something.

That is what I want journalism/the media to return to--being right instead of trying to make others believe their wrong, sometimes maliciously wrong, statements are true.

If I was teaching a science class, it would be important to me that the students holding onto the flat Earth concept be exposed to the truth and be able to answer the questions on the test. It would not be my job to change their beliefs.

Agreed.

Most of the time on these message boards I am testing my own arguments/beliefs to see if they will hold up.

OT:

LOL. Given the quality of remarks I most often see on this board, that's not a terribly rigorous test, IMO. LOL Perhaps other message boards have many members who routinely deliver markedly higher quality content than is typical here.​

It doesn't mean that the something doesn't still feel right to me, but I recognize I cannot make a good case for it.

Well, there's plenty that feels right to me, and that I had rather be right, yet I know isn't right and thus don't ascribe to it. All sorts of things are emotionally satisfying; that they are has nothing to do with their soundness as conclusions and courses of action.

I like to think this comes from intellectual honesty. More likely it is probably from years of debate

Intellectual honesty is wherefrom one finds the will to challenge and alter one's conclusions. Years of debate are merely one of the ways one obtains practice at doing so, as well as obtaining practice with developing increasingly more sound arguments and recognizing unsound ones.

though it is rare, I have had my mind changed via an intelligent and well expressed argument of others.

Well, without referring specifically to you and your behavior (I don't know you well enough to so refer), people having zounds and no intellectual integrity can truthfully say the same thing. Very bight people and utter fools can too. The frequency of one's mind changing is immaterial; why one changes or doesn't change one's mind is what matters.

I think that the smartest people are the ones who are most often wrong. I think that because I think only very bright people are intellectually curious enough to frequently push the envelope enough and rigorously enough to find out what is and is not so. Doing so means, however, that one oten risks being wrong. That's okay to do/be, however, because discovering the truth is more valuable to everyone than is one's being right.

That is what I want journalism/the media to return to--being right instead of trying to make others believe their wrong, sometimes maliciously wrong, statements are true.

I don't see that news journalists have ever swayed from that principle. News journalists may at different times wear different "hats." At five o'clock they may report the news, making them news reporters, and at 5:02 they may be news commentators.

Per the line in your last paragraph that I bolded. . .
Here I just have to believe you are seeing it wrong. As one trained in journalistic ethics, integrity, and responsibility, I see that most sway from that principle on a regular basis these days.

 

[Foxfyre]

If I was teaching a science class, it would be important to me that the students holding onto the flat Earth concept be exposed to the truth and be able to answer the questions on the test. It would not be my job to change their beliefs. My job is to be sure they have the correct information to believe and thus have an opportunity to think differently about it should they choose to.

Nice. That's a good defense of teaching; I see that I attacked that implicitly.

Most of the time on these message boards I am testing my own arguments/beliefs to see if they will hold up.

Sure --- there's a lot of that going around. "I have to see what I write before I know what I think," Evelyn Waugh, IIRC.

More likely it is probably from years of debate teams/coach/judge and also old fashioned training in journalism and investigation that required that I be able to support my theories or statements of fact in coherent ways.

Where have they gone, the old-time journalists we believed in and felt we could believe in? It's too bad what has happened.

And, though it is rare, I have had my mind changed via an intelligent and well expressed argument of others.

Rare is right, for me, but I say so when it happens. And then worry that my correspondent has fainted dead away.

So I would be intellectually dishonest if I didn't admit that I hope by putting out what I strongly believe to be the truth that there are a few intellectually honest folks out there who want to BE right and will change their mind instead of just having their wrong beliefs affirmed.

Oh, I know --- don't read my posts on any other forum if you believe I am as tolerant of other opinions as I pretend here! I in fact don't expect anyone to change their opinions because of me, but when the topic is hot (I'm being particularly bad in one of those men vs women threads) I enjoy firing away, full-bore, heavy ammo.

That is what I want journalism/the media to return to--being right instead of trying to make others believe their wrong, sometimes maliciously wrong, statements are true.

I see you miss it too, the old standards of reporting. Truth! I've had to give up the whole concept. Think with work-arounds.

I see you miss it too, the old standards of reporting. Truth! I've had to give up the whole concept. Think with work-arounds.

The "old" standard remain. New standards have been added to them. There's nothing amiss about that.

Per my last post I respectfully disagree. There is a LOT amiss about that.