Based On Your Experiences, Is It Easier to Prove or Disprove Something?

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

A U.S. Message Board member recently pointed out to me that irrespective of what anyone else thinks, he's entitled to his own opinion. To my surprise, after I looked up the word "opinion" in the dictionary, it suddenly dawned on me that the reason I struggle so much with some of the opinions of others is because they state their opinion as fact or as if their opinions, even when uninformed are as a valid as those based in fact or knowledge. Thus the rise of "alternative facts" in a sense.

A fact is something that can be proven or disproved, an opinion is apparently anything you want it to be. What is easier for you all, proving something or disproving it and why? I think it it often easier for me to disprove than prove but that may just be my default, not that it's actually easier.

I've seen it written that outside of court it doesn't really matter. What say you all?

 

[JoeMoma]

It takes just one counterexample for disproof.

 

[Justin Richardson]

What I get a kick out of, is the fact, there are some people that will try to tell you;

"In my opinion, the facts are true. I did the research, so it must be true. Why would it otherwise be an "opinion", when I backed it up with facts?"

I say, "Well, even some facts can be manipulated and sometimes futile. It doesn't mean, that it is automatically a fact. But hey, based on your opinion, it must be true."

 

[Indeependent]

A U.S. Message Board member recently pointed out to me that irrespective of what anyone else thinks, he's entitled to his own opinion. To my surprise, after I looked up the word "opinion" in the dictionary, it suddenly dawned on me that the reason I struggle so much with some of the opinions of others is because they state their opinion as fact or as if their opinions, even when uninformed are as a valid as those based in fact or knowledge. Thus the rise of "alternative facts" in a sense.

A fact is something that can be proven or disproved, an opinion is apparently anything you want it to be. What is easier for you all, proving something or disproving it and why? I think it it often easier for me to disprove than prove but that may just be my default, not that it's actually easier.

I've seen it written that outside of court it doesn't really matter. What say you all?

The problem is the source of one's point of view.
During GW, Fox lied it's ass off every day, all day.
During Obama, MSNBC and CNN lied it's ass off every day, all day.
During Trump, MSNBC and CNN lied their asses off every day, all day.

 

[Shelzin]

It’s Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled


No idea who said that... Awesome quote. So very true.

 

[flacaltenn]

A U.S. Message Board member recently pointed out to me that irrespective of what anyone else thinks, he's entitled to his own opinion. To my surprise, after I looked up the word "opinion" in the dictionary, it suddenly dawned on me that the reason I struggle so much with some of the opinions of others is because they state their opinion as fact or as if their opinions, even when uninformed are as a valid as those based in fact or knowledge. Thus the rise of "alternative facts" in a sense.

A fact is something that can be proven or disproved, an opinion is apparently anything you want it to be. What is easier for you all, proving something or disproving it and why? I think it it often easier for me to disprove than prove but that may just be my default, not that it's actually easier.

I've seen it written that outside of court it doesn't really matter. What say you all?

JoeMoma made the important point here. Opinions can be rock solid and logical or emotional and fleeting. The difference is -- you TEST opinions by defending them. If people can hurl questions and you address all their counterpoints properly with numbers and facts and logic and reason -- you win.

Kinda like what SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN on USMB -- but the world is stinking polluted with garbage opinions passing as "journalism" or "commentary" that never get tested. And too many people dont do enough independent thinking and analysis to be SOLID in their opinions.. In fact, I dont think that's even occurred to most people from the looks of the threads on this board.

Anyone that DODGES specific well intentioned questions shouldn't be ENTITLED to opinions --

In my opinion.....


BTW Mariyam (love the name) -- It's no different in science. In science, opinions are called theories and those that survive peer review and questions are the ones the ones deemed truthful and lasting "laws". But even laws of science or "opinions" in science are NEVER SAFE unless constantly, successfully defended.

If USMB members did more of that -- this place would be more valuable than Bitcoin....

 

[MaryL]

It takes just one counterexample for disproof.

Its hard when the opposition has the power to redefine everything & cancel criticism. Because racism is bad.

 

[toobfreak]

Based On Your Experiences, Is It Easier to Prove or Disprove Something?

Neither really. As a trained logician, I know that it can be equally as easy or hard to prove or disprove something wholly based on the circumstances.

A U.S. Message Board member recently pointed out to me that irrespective of what anyone else thinks, he's entitled to his own opinion. To my surprise, after I looked up the word "opinion" in the dictionary, it suddenly dawned on me that the reason I struggle so much with some of the opinions of others is because they state their opinion as fact or as if their opinions, even when uninformed are as a valid as those based in fact or knowledge. Thus the rise of "alternative facts" in a sense. A fact is something that can be proven or disproved, an opinion is apparently anything you want it to be.

Quite true, opinions ARE opinions! Anyone can have them and they can be anything. So long as YOU know it is just your opinion. But as you point out, many people confuse their opinions with facts, and it is never a good sign when a person makes it clear their opinions remain uncharged REGARDLESS OF FACTS.

Far better as I always do, my opinions are formed BASED on facts.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

A negative cannot be proven. It is far easier to prove something than disprove it. Twice in my life I have been asked to prove a negative. Once I was named as a witness in a traffic accident. I have no idea where the people got my name from but I was nowhere near the scene of that accident. I was questioned and investigated by two insurance companies and the police department. Aside from saying I wasn't there and I don't know anything there wasn't much more I could do. I offered evidence as to where I really was, but it was not quite enough to prove I didn't see that accident.

The second time was more serious. I was listed as being at a business meeting in London, England. I was to testify as to statements made at that meeting. I was never at that meeting. I was never in London and I don't have a passport. There was a wealth of evidence that I was indeed there. There were hotel bills, receipts, telephone records, eye witness statements and receipts and boarding passes for plane tickets from Los Angeles to London. Except I was never there. I was ordered by the High Court to appear and give evidence. I have no passport so I could not appear. I know how Michael Cohen felt when he was supposedly in the Czech Republic and was never there. I don't know what happened. It seemed like they just gave up and left me alone.

Especially today where we are awash in an ocean of fakery, it is easier to prove something than disprove it when someone else is creating evidence.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

It takes just one counterexample for disproof.

Indeed and then when you give the counter example that proves your opponent wrong,they deflect and change the subject and do this everytime.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

A U.S. Message Board member recently pointed out to me that irrespective of what anyone else thinks, he's entitled to his own opinion. To my surprise, after I looked up the word "opinion" in the dictionary, it suddenly dawned on me that the reason I struggle so much with some of the opinions of others is because they state their opinion as fact or as if their opinions, even when uninformed are as a valid as those based in fact or knowledge. Thus the rise of "alternative facts" in a sense.

A fact is something that can be proven or disproved, an opinion is apparently anything you want it to be. What is easier for you all, proving something or disproving it and why? I think it it often easier for me to disprove than prove but that may just be my default, not that it's actually easier.

I've seen it written that outside of court it doesn't really matter. What say you all?

JoeMoma made the important point here. Opinions can be rock solid and logical or emotional and fleeting. The difference is -- you TEST opinions by defending them. If people can hurl questions and you address all their counterpoints properly with numbers and facts and logic and reason -- you win.

Kinda like what SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN on USMB -- but the world is stinking polluted with garbage opinions passing as "journalism" or "commentary" that never get tested. And too many people dont do enough independent thinking and analysis to be SOLID in their opinions.. In fact, I dont think that's even occurred to most people from the looks of the threads on this board.

Anyone that DODGES specific well intentioned questions shouldn't be ENTITLED to opinions --

In my opinion.....


BTW Mariyam (love the name) -- It's no different in science. In science, opinions are called theories and those that survive peer review and questions are the ones the ones deemed truthful and lasting "laws". But even laws of science or "opinions" in science are NEVER SAFE unless constantly, successfully defended.

If USMB members did more of that -- this place would be more valuable than Bitcoin....

Hey flacaltenn, good to see you and thank you so much for your kind words.

 

[foggedinn]

It is true that it is impossible to prove a negative. It is also true that with God all things are possible. I was falsely accused of being a drug dealer by undercover policemen who had built an absolutely damming, open and shut, airtight false case against me. When a policeman picked a fight with me and demanded that I confess to what I had not done or he was going to beat the hell out of me in front of over a hundred people, I put my faith in God and witnessed the truth of all I knew of the matter. The police were statutorily forbidden from speaking the truth of all they knew of the matter as the truth would reveal undercover sources and methods. I walked away free and clear from the biggest mess in Mississippi law enforcement history.

It all came down to credibility. On the one hand was a witness who tried to hide nothing of what I had done or knew of what anyone else had done and on the other hand was the sworn oaths of over a hundred paid professional liars and manipulators that I was buying my pot from. The evidence that the police had already presented to the grand jury established my innocence.

I was born a sinner and I will surely die a sinner, but I was not a drug dealer.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

...it is never a good sign when a person makes it clear their opinions remain uncharged REGARDLESS OF FACTS.

So what do you do when you reach this impasse?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

A negative cannot be proven. It is far easier to prove something than disprove it. Twice in my life I have been asked to prove a negative. Once I was named as a witness in a traffic accident. I have no idea where the people got my name from but I was nowhere near the scene of that accident. I was questioned and investigated by two insurance companies and the police department. Aside from saying I wasn't there and I don't know anything there wasn't much more I could do. I offered evidence as to where I really was, but it was not quite enough to prove I didn't see that accident.

The second time was more serious. I was listed as being at a business meeting in London, England. I was to testify as to statements made at that meeting. I was never at that meeting. I was never in London and I don't have a passport. There was a wealth of evidence that I was indeed there. There were hotel bills, receipts, telephone records, eye witness statements and receipts and boarding passes for plane tickets from Los Angeles to London. Except I was never there. I was ordered by the High Court to appear and give evidence. I have no passport so I could not appear. I know how Michael Cohen felt when he was supposedly in the Czech Republic and was never there. I don't know what happened. It seemed like they just gave up and left me alone.

Especially today where we are awash in an ocean of fakery, it is easier to prove something than disprove it when someone else is creating evidence.

I hear where you've coming from, I have a completely fabricated entry on my driving record that says I was talking on a cell phone while driving.

If I had known then what I learned just a few years later I could have subpoenaed my cell phone tower records and proven that my device was not in use at the time the trooper lied and said I was using it.

When it comes to law enforcement, they are given automatic credibility by the courts, although I still would have liked it to have gone on the record that I supplied the court with electronic documents disproving/disputing the trooper's account of the events that transpired.

 

[there4eyeM]

...it is never a good sign when a person makes it clear their opinions remain uncharged REGARDLESS OF FACTS.

So what do you do when you reach this impasse?

Go on to something else.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

...it is never a good sign when a person makes it clear their opinions remain uncharged REGARDLESS OF FACTS.

So what do you do when you reach this impasse?

Go on to something else.

It's not always that simple. When your opponent is presenting opinion as fact and is arguing in support of something that is not even true AND the judge buys into it, you have to have a mechanism that you can use to very precisely dismantle their false construct, as concisely as possible.

 

[Thoth001]

It’s Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled


No idea who said that... Awesome quote. So very true.

So true!! I have been trying to convince people that this whole COVID thing is a fraud from the start and most don't listen. Because they like to be fooled and live an illusion.

 

[occupied]

IRL I seriously don't care to argue with people. I would rather have peace than be right.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

A U.S. Message Board member recently pointed out to me that irrespective of what anyone else thinks, he's entitled to his own opinion. To my surprise, after I looked up the word "opinion" in the dictionary, it suddenly dawned on me that the reason I struggle so much with some of the opinions of others is because they state their opinion as fact or as if their opinions, even when uninformed are as a valid as those based in fact or knowledge. Thus the rise of "alternative facts" in a sense.

A fact is something that can be proven or disproved, an opinion is apparently anything you want it to be. What is easier for you all, proving something or disproving it and why? I think it it often easier for me to disprove than prove but that may just be my default, not that it's actually easier.

I've seen it written that outside of court it doesn't really matter. What say you all?

What I truly find in life is that 95% of the people are just plain wrong about everything. Thus they slave to a boss for a wasted life of misery.

5% know what the hell they are doing and talking about. Without these 5%, people would be living in mud huts

 

[JOSweetHeart]

The second time was more serious. I was listed as being at a business meeting in London, England. I was to testify as to statements made at that meeting. I was never at that meeting. I was never in London and I don't have a passport. There was a wealth of evidence that I was indeed there. There were hotel bills, receipts, telephone records, eye witness statements and receipts and boarding passes for plane tickets from Los Angeles to London. Except I was never there. I was ordered by the High Court to appear and give evidence. I have no passport so I could not appear. I know how Michael Cohen felt when he was supposedly in the Czech Republic and was never there. I don't know what happened. It seemed like they just gave up and left me alone.

Especially today where we are awash in an ocean of fakery, it is easier to prove something than disprove it when someone else is creating evidence.

Your second time there sounds like someone made you their victim of identity theft. If I'm right, I pray that you were able to get it all cleared up.

I have a completely fabricated entry on my driving record that says I was talking on a cell phone while driving.

If I had known then what I learned just a few years later I could have subpoenaed my cell phone tower records and proven that my device was not in use at the time the trooper lied and said I was using it.

When it comes to law enforcement, they are given automatic credibility by the courts, although I still would have liked it to have gone on the record that I supplied the court with electronic documents disproving/disputing the trooper's account of the events that transpired.

I don't have a cellular phone. Thank you for making me aware of just how smart a decision not having one may be.

IRL I seriously don't care to argue with people. I would rather have peace than be right.

I second this.

Neither really. As a trained logician, I know that it can be equally as easy or hard to prove or disprove something wholly based on the circumstances.

This was my first thought when thinking about my answer to the asked question. All situations can have plenty of things to consider.

God bless all four of you always!!!

Holly