None. I believe everything. Especially the contradictory parts. It’s one of the powers granted to me by my true nature, revealed through the one true Slackmaster, J.R. “Bob” Dobbs.
Like with questions posted in a forum: at least, having little more to read than just its title ;)
What elaboration do you require from the title to allow you to answer the question fully?
I would say, a good starting point would be a few examples of those so-called facts and their corresponding data.
Half-jokingly, I have little doubt I could find a lot of data demonstrating the earth is flat on flat-earth.org or whatever flat-earthers main website is called. But no matter the amount of data I would find there that still would not cut it as far as I’m concerned to accept their certainty as a fact—Incidentally, I also just answered your first question: it’s not just the quantity of data, it’s also its trustworthiness that should matter ;)
I keep hearing “it isn’t the quantity…” and I do not understand why it isn’t seen as just as important as trustworthiness of source because even the best source needs a high amount of data to back up a claim.
On the topic of flat earthers, did you ever see the video of the guy who tried to demonstrate the earth was flat and proved it was round? The look on his face was priceless. haha
I keep hearing “it isn’t the quantity…” and I do not understand why it isn’t seen as just as important as trustworthiness of source because even the best source needs a high amount of data to back up a claim.
consider my flat-earthers example: the trustworthiness of the source(s) is at least as important. If I told you my pseudo is ‘Libb’ you can bet that it is indeed so, even if that just me saying it. And that would remain true if, out of nowhere, 100s of people started telling you my pseudo was in reality ‘Mickey’ or ‘Gertrude’. I would still be Libb. Conclusion? All by myself, against that hypotheticla large crowd, I’m still a more reliable source of info concerning my identity.
On the topic of flat earthers, did you ever see the video of the guy who tried to demonstrate the earth was flat and proved it was round? The look on his face was priceless. haha
No, and I’m almost wishing to see it. Almost.
I must admit the rise of flat earth theory came as a shock to me. I always have had a sweet spot for absurd theories but I could not imagine people taking those seriously. But maybe that’s just me being manipulated/lobotomized by the government? As a matter of fact, I’m also a pro-vax and that may explain a lot :p
consider my flat-earthers example: the trustworthiness of the source(s) is at least as important. If I told you my pseudo is ‘Libb’ you can bet that it is indeed so, even if that just me saying it. And that would remain true if, out of nowhere, 100s of people started telling you my pseudo was in reality ‘Mickey’ or ‘Gertrude’. I would still be Libb. Conclusion? All by myself, against that hypotheticla large crowd, I’m still a more reliable source of info concerning my identity.
The trustworthiness is absolutely important, and just as important to me, as quantity. The point I was making is it seems that a lot of people in the thread have been underrating the importance of quantity and over rating the importance of source quality. Even the most reputable sources can be wrong, especially in frontier sciences, which leads to a lot of retractions and rewrites.
Using your example, you could be lying.
No, and I’m almost wishing to see it. Almost.
It isn’t worth hunting down, but worth a watch if you stumble across it. haha
I must admit the rise of flat earth theory came as a shock to me. I always have had a sweet spot for absurd theories but I could not imagine people taking those seriously. But maybe that’s just me being manipulated/lobotomized by the government? As a matter of fact, I’m also a pro-vax and that may explain a lot :p
It came as a shock to me as well. I enjoy reading about the absurd ideas people have in their heads, and I get why people believe in them. It makes sense to them, and they rely on nothing but personal observation and limited knowledge to form beliefs. They were failed as children in my opinion.
I too got my microchips and am possibly being manipulated by the government. Which one? Who knows. Monies on the US. lol
Using your example, you could be lying.
True that. It’s even more interesting considering ‘Libb’ is not my real name, just the one I fancy using online. But I would say that it’s beside the point of your question (which was not about the possibility one would be intentionally telling lies, just how much data makes a ‘fact’ reliable), still, it’s obviously related.
But then… considering that for some undisclosed reason you could not get access to more (source of) info, how would you decide if I say the truth about my name or not, when at the same time next to me some people (more than one) are claiming I’m a liar and that my name is Gertrude? Maybe that can’t be decided? Or that should not be? Or mayb the dude claiming his name should be given some extra credit? Or maybe not (I may say I’m but I doubt Elon Musk will admit I’m his natural son and that I should therefore be entitled to a part of his huge piles of money, plus change for the trauma I endured ;)
It depends. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If I can find three reputable sources that say the same thing, I feel pretty confident in accepting it as fact. The real trick is finding reputable sources. Media Bias Fact Check is really helpful for this.
Have you ever tried the 1 Left, 1 center, 1 right source when looking into something? I try to do this myself when I have the time and can find the articles.
How do you define the centre? Do you account for existing wide-spread social biases? E.g. systemic racism, or the neoliberal belief that we can have infinite growth on a finite planet?
The center is the middle of the right and left.
I am unsure what you are asking after that.
But left and right aren’t absolute positions, they change in time. E.g. democrats now hold a lot of similar positions to what the republicans held in the 1980s (and also a lot of different ones).
Left and right are also a unidimensional approximation of a multidimensional value space… E.g. most people on the left disagree with nearly everything Marjorie Taylor Greene says, but they agree with her that the US should not be supporting Israel’s war on Iran.
There are also people on the left AND the right that oppose global economic liberalisation, but what is often called the “centre” supports it - clearly not a “middle” stance.
So how can you meaningfully define what is led and what is right, for the purpose of your reading?
But left and right aren’t absolute positions, they change in time.
What do you think that means for the center?
That it also changes in time and is not absolute. And also, in many ways, that it does it does not exist (in the sense that the “centre” in one dimension might be correlated with extremes in another)
If the center, right, and left change over time how do you expect me to define “center” beyond that which is situated between left and right?
They’re referring to the shifting variance between political sides and the range expressed between them. The Overton Window usually.
The Overton window is the range of subjects and arguments politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. It is also known as the window of discourse. The key to the concept is that the window changes over time; it can shift, or shrink or expand. It exemplifies “the slow evolution of societal values and norms”.
Outside of this window you still have Left and Right, but they’re the more extreme beliefs that the general populace doesn’t currently accept. The window shifting over time means something that would have been considered absolutely insane 20 years ago, could be entirely mainstream now.
A current example would be federal deployment of the military to handle local protests when there is no declared State of Emergency and local government doesn’t need or want assistance.
It is itself extremely biased, you believed an authority that isn’t neutral.
How so? Seemed reasonable enough for the few things I checked.
To my knowledge they have been criticized for being biased, but from what I can find their ratings don’t differ drastically from other providers.
Their problem is that any news agency in the middle east is automatically “untrustworthy” with quotes like “they haven’t been found to report false stories, but we still give them an untrustworthy rating”.
Do you have examples of reputable sources from the middle east that have an unfair rating?
I already gave you the examples, I said that they unfairly represent middle eastern news as untrustworthy. Or are you here to nitpick and “um ackthcshually”?
It is itself extremely biased, you believed an authority that isn’t neutral.
Their problem is that any news agency in the middle east is automatically “untrustworthy” with quotes like “they haven’t been found to report false stories, but we still give them an untrustworthy rating”.
I already gave you the examples, I said that they unfairly represent middle eastern news as untrustworthy. Or are you here to nitpick and “um ackthcshually”?
You have provided 0 examples of a middle eastern news source that is unfairly ranked.
Are you going to keep being combative and waste both of our time refusing to answer a simple good faith question?
From their own description of Al Jazeera
Al Jazeera has been a valuable voice for the Palestinians as most Western media favors Israel. While most of its reporting has been factual in covering the conflict they have demonstrated one-sided reporting that tends to denigrate Israel.
Mixed for factual reporting. They cite 2 articles that they have found to be false since forever. They complain about “loaded language”. Yet they say “straight news has minimal bias”. Then they give Times of Israel “high credibility” and speak how unbiased their language is, giving the same examples as they gave in the Al Jazeera one for “biased language”.
High credibility is 2 “levels” higher than the middle of the field “mixed”.
If I can find three reputable sources that say the same thing
They used to say ALL cholestrol was bad, every doctor said it. But then someone discovered about HDL and LDL
Also, doctors used to say smoking doesn’t cause cancer.
Also, doctors used to say smoking doesn’t cause cancer.
Doctors paid by cigarette companies said that, and they were in a tiny minority of doctors.
There are scientists now who say global warming is a hoax because they have a monetary interest.
At least 4.
It honestly depends more on the source to me. I’d like to claim to rely on data but life is short and there is no way I can verify even a fraction of all the truths I have come to accept.
Reading it once on social media
Hearing it in a YouTube short linked by a one day old account
I think this applies to vastly more of us than are comfortable admitting
Yes, but only if it matches my current beliefs.
I remember there was one fact I was really beating my head on; A dishwasher should always have some food or other gunk on the dishes before starting the machine, otherwise the detergent will attack the coloring on the dishes instead.
How has no company solved this problem? It makes no sense. Many people do wash their kitchenware so it doesn’t stink up the entire dishwasher if it has been sitting for a while… idk.
I would be happy to hear if anyone can help confirm or dismiss this.
I’m going out on a limb and saying untrue.
How would the dish soap not “attack” the pigments on the crockery not covered by gunk, do you need to make sure that the plate is covered in an even spread? It’s a desurficant, iirc, with hydrophobic molecules to get into molecular scale sized spaces. Maybe unvarnished crockery could lose the colour… But eating off that and washing it wouldn’t be the best choice either.
Also, most dishwashers instruct you to rinse the worst off in the sink before loading. And we’ve followed that and most of our china still has good colours, the one that doesn’t I know was left in direct sunlight for over a summer.
Phosphates were banned in dishwasher detergents in 2011, so most of the name brand companies switched to enzyme-based cleaners that use amylase and protease, which dissolve starches and proteins, respectively. And then some traditional detergent, which allows oil and water to mix, washes it all away.
The nature of the enzymes are that as soon as they’ve broken up the starch or protein, they survive the reaction and can happily move onto the next starch or protein molecule. So if they’re overactive, without enough targets, then any portion of the dishes that are sensitive to that particular cleaner is going to get a higher “dose” of that cleaner working specifically at it.
I have heard this before and as far as I was ever able to find it is a bunch of bunk that seemed to originate from damage done by a recalled detergent.
At least 400 kilobyte.
It takes a lot for me to accept something as fact, but I’m okay with living my life on a combination of likelihoods, reasonable plausibilities, and vibes
If we’re talking about things that are easily quantifiable, not very much at all.
yeah that makes sense, like a math proof
What would you classify as easily quantifiable?
It isn’t quantity. It is the quality and logical reasoning.
I would argue that quantity is just as important as quality and logical reasoning. The Triforce of Science, if you will.
It varies widely depending on a combination of whether it impacts me directly, whether it contradicts or is inconsistent with information I have already accepted as fact, and the source. The source includes being reliable and if the fact could be something that serves the source’s self interest as that would require corroboration.
Until recently, if NASA tells me their current data shows that black holes exist at the center of a galaxy I take their word for it. They have been consistently reliable for decades and their entire mission is about increasing knowledge and sharing it with the entire world. With recent administrative changes I am more skeptical and wouldn’t trust something that contradicts prior scientific discoveries without corroboration from an external agency like the European Space Agency. I would take the ESA at their word currently.
If a for profit company says anything I want corroboration from a neutral 3rd party. They have too much incentive to lie or mislead to be trusted on their own.
Something from a stranger that fits into prior knowledge might be accepted at face value or I might double check some other source. Depends on how important it is to me and whether believing that would lead to any obvious negative outcome. I will probably also double check if it is interesting enough to want to check, and I’ll use skepticism as an excuse.
That covers actual factual stuff that could possibly be corroborated by a third party. Facts like the Earth orbits the sun or Puerto Rico is a US territory type stuff.
Then there are other things that can be factual but difficult to determine and that is a combination of experience and current knowledge, plus whether believing it would be a benefit or negative. If someone tells me the ice isn’t thick enough based on their judgement I will treat it as a fact and not go out on it unless I had some reason not to believe them. If they told me apples were found to be unhealthy I would check other sources.
Thank you for such a detailed answer.
A sufficient amount
There are very few pieces of knowledge that I’d consider a fact. Rather, I tend to see those as the best current knowledge that might turn out to be false in the future. The fact of consciousness is among the only things in the entire universe that I see as absolutely being true. Pretty much anything else can just be an illusion.
How do you know consciousness is “true” and not also an illusion created by the brain?
Because consciousness is where illusions appear. The unconscious mind can’t experience illusions.
I’m using Thomas Nagel’s definition of consciousness: the fact of experience - that it feels like something to be from a subjective point of view.
Even if we’re living in a simulation and literally everything is fake, what remains undeniable is that it feels like something to be simulated. I’d argue that this is the only thing in the entire universe that cannot be an illusion.
The unconscious mind can’t experience illusions.
How do humans dream?
“Unconsciousness” as a clinical term is different from the absence of consciousness in the philosophical or phenomenological sense.
A sleeping person may appear unconscious to an outside observer, but from the subjective point of view, they’re not - because dreaming feels like something. A better example of what I mean by unconsciousness is general anesthesia. That doesn’t feel like anything. One moment you’re lying in the operating room counting backwards, and the next you’re in the recovery room. There’s no sense of time passing, no dreams, nothing in between - it’s just a gap.
Thomas Nagel explains this idea in What Is It Like to Be a Bat? by saying that if bats are conscious, then trading places with one wouldn’t be like the lights going out - it would feel like something to be a bat. But if you switched places with a rock, it likely wouldn’t feel like anything at all. It would be indistinguishable from dying - because there’s no subjectivity, no point of view, no experience happening.
Some studies on dreams under anesthesia.
What do you disagree with here exactly?
A better example of what I mean by unconsciousness is general anesthesia. That doesn’t feel like anything. One moment you’re lying in the operating room counting backwards, and the next you’re in the recovery room. There’s no sense of time passing, no dreams, nothing in between - it’s just a gap.
I am not disagreeing. I am providing you something that demonstrates the premise you built your idea on is false.
Even if it is an illusion created by the brain, does that make it any less existent?
If you see a mirage of a spring in the desert can you quench your thirst?
The fact that there is word for this experience demonstrates that the experience itself objectively exists, which only serves to prove my point.
Answer the question.
I have absolutely no idea why you are being so weird about this since obviously if the spring does not exist then it cannot be drunk from. However, what you are working bizarrely hard to go out of your way to miss is that, regardless of whether the spring itself exists in objective reality, the experience of seeing it has objective existence.
Phrased in a different way: if you see something that looks like a spring in the desert, then that might not mean that you will be able to drink from it, but you can be certain that, in that moment, you are seeing something that looks like a spring in the desert.
Do Unicorns exist?
