The RIGHT to be WRONG
So... what I'm saying is wrong...
So what?
What difference does it make?
We're wrong often.
About a lot of things.
So?
" The Apollo missions to the Moon were a hoax! " You have the right to believe this. If you get in Buzz Aldrin's face, though...
The truth of this should be obvious to everyone, because, according to the Bible, all creatures were created in the same week.
Of course, ever since forever there have been people who looked at masts "coming up over the horizon", to deduce that the Earth is a ball. It is easy to observe that the Earth is not flat.
Hey! This is a no-brainer! We can see the Sun rise in the East and set in the West… every day! It's obvious. It's Common Sense.
... and of course... it is totally wrong ...
Nowadays, we all know that the Earth revolves around the Sun. We know it because we learned it when we were children, either in school or from our parents.
We all know something that is directly contrary to what we observe.
So... all the billions of people who lived before Copernicus were... what? Were they stupid? There's no reason to imagine that, since everyone thought the same. Were they deluded? Not really, since they - and everyone else - could see proof of geocentrism, filling the sky, every day. At the same time... They were wrong .
So... if billions of people are wrong about lots of things... what's wrong with being wrong?
Wrong 'facts' lead to bad decisions. Bad decisions lead to negative consequences. Off the top of my head ...
I could go on.
That's a pretty good list.
Is "being wrong" the problem, or us it the consequences?
The consequences are what matter most, but being wrong enables the bad consequences.
Thinking that ingesting chloroquine phosphate will protect you from COVID-19 is not itself a problem but acting on this belief is:
I totally agree.
Personally, I tend to look at it as: after I am wrong about something-- what do I do next?
I do not know how to interpret your post. Please expand...
Well, sure, and many people in the past thought the Earth was flat.
My point is that acting on a false belief is a problem.
What is your point?
Belief itself can be a problem, in addition to acting on it, as it can suspend critical thinking.
As I always say, belief does not equal fact. It's a shame some prefer belief over fact or evidence.
And in my experience, unfortunately that's true for the majority of people.
Most people don't know the difference.
If you ask, "What is a fact?", you'll get something like "something that's true". You'd have to insist to get to the notion of "proof".
Proof is nice. But I would even settle for evidence. Unfortunately, even that is often not provided.
I tend to agree. Many people want to believe they're right, while being factually or objectively wrong. There's an emotional attachment to belief that prevents rational thinking.
No.
Boy, is that ever rich.
You posted the definition for ONE word to prove that TWO words mean the same thing? Are you looking at the list of SIMILAR words? You know that "similar" and "same" also don't mean the same thing, right?
"Proof" is stronger than "evidence". Circumstantial evidence is often proof of nothing, and even leads to incorrect conclusions. Is it therefore "proof"? Can we provide "proof" that incorrect conclusions are correct? Or did we misinterpret the evidence?
As with many English words, colloquial usages will sometimes overlap, but the existence of an overlap does not make the two words identical in meaning. They simply are not.
Evidence refers to observations which corroborate a fact. For example, a large gash in the side of a white boat which left turquoise streaks is evidence of a collision with a turquoise painted object.
Proof is typically an argument based on sound evidence. For example, the aforementioned gash along with a complementary gash in a neighbor's turquoise boat and iPhone video showing that the neighbor was drunk and out of control while docking is what one would call proof (colloquially).
Technically though, proof is never truly achieved in real life. We can prove assertions in formal systems such as calculus or predicate logic, but in the real world we never achieve 100% certainty (proof). It really is more a confidence factor based on evidence ... an approximation to a true proof.
Bottom line: proof ≅ certainty evidence ≅ supporting corroborated facts
So if someone asks for (technical) proof of God, for example, that is an impossible task (typically to an outrageous claim of certainty). But asking for evidence of God should be doable (if God exists).
Are you saying proof and evidence are not interchangeable at all?
Here are the opening words of my post:
Here is the key point of my post:
When someone claims a certainty (truth) they bear the burden of proof.
So if someone claims 'God exists!' that claim of truth bears the burden of proof. But even evidence would be remarkable.
But if someone states 'I believe in God' that bears no burden of proof (or even evidence).
Are you trying to write “anger can be a response to an ‘a—hole’”?
If so, I think it is a poor way to respond. Better to just illustrate the flaws in the individual’s comments.
... and there's copy/paste to avoid errors...
No, they are not.
No one has produced any empirical evidence for God (or any god/s) yet, despite thousands of years of claims and stories. That is a perfect example of belief being wishful thinking at best (delusion at worst), but not grounded in logic or reality.
Also rich.
We're wrong often.
About a lot of things.
I wonder...
Are you sure that's actually true?
Socratic method...
Just to play Devil's Advocate for a bit...there is another interesting aspect to this.
My academic background (such that it is) is mainly in the field of Psychology. And I've had a fascination with that area in general as well as related topics for quite a while.
One area especially: the study of creativity.
And one way highly creative people differ from us "ordinary" folk.
One characteristic of highly creative people? They make many more mistakes than other people!
(Yes-- they are wrong much, much more than other people!!!)
Stands to reason, those willing to experiment with new ideas will make more mistakes than those who shy away from the risk of exploration.
But then there are those who are wrong because they are too lazy or frightened to try to find the truth.
Stands to reason, those willing to experiment with new ideas will make more mistakes than those who shy away from the risk of exploration.
Exactly. Of course I was just being a bit mischievous.here. One of reasons the great inventors of all time finally made great inventions is because after an initial attempt that failed, rather than give up they just kept going-- tried many, many different things-- all of which were "wrong"-- until they finally tried something that succeeded.
So on one hand, its true that highly successful creative make many more mistakes than others would (because they try more things).
But OTOH in that sort of situation, their numerous mistakes don't matter because what counts is that they get the result.
But then there are those who are wrong because they are too lazy or frightened to try to find the truth.
Yes. And of course that's really the point of this discussion.
So perhaps the main point here (getting back to the original focus of all this) is that what really matters is not whether or not someone makes mistakes-- heck, we all do). But rather--what a person does after they make a mistake.
What do they do next? Deny it, attempt to cover it up, yet still stay on the same (counter-productive) path?
Or admit it was a mistake and do what's best to correct the mistake?
The mistakes were made in pursuit of truth.
Seems to me, this article is not about making mistakes, but rather about being wrong (holding as truth that which is false). But I agree that it matters how when reacts to a mistake. There are some who have been shown to be wrong (proof by contradiction) countless times yet refuse to learn.
Well OK then. I suppose there are actually two important aspects to this-- two things that are the best things to do:
1. Do your best to avoid making serious mistakes in the first place! (Be aware of making assumptions not backed up by fact, etc)
2. When you do make a mistake, admit it-- and do your best to change course for the better, to do what you can to remedy the error.
This is the real topic, of course.
As you say, the first alternative is to recognize... or deny....
This isn't simple. If I believe something to be true... why would I ever recognize the opposite?
Actually that's that's a question I pondered off and on for many years....
Why? The short answer is that its related to the nature of belief systems...and more specifically why there appears to be the need to have a strong belief system, one that seems to be a part of human nature-- at least in many people.
Even if much or all of that belief system is false.
(And then again-- there are some people who are less attached to having a strong belief system, and more motivated to seek the truth-- the actual facts)
It seems to me that some people identify themselves with their knowledge. If that knowledge has flaws, then those people feel themselves to be flawed. So they need their knowledge to be correct.
They hold a press briefing at 4 Seasons Total Landscaping
We all know something that is directly contrary to what we observe.
That brings up several interesting questions.
One issue that has come up in discussions here, discussions of the topic "Does God exist"?.
That discussion often gets into the issue of proving-- or disproving-- the existence of God (or some sort of "Higher Intelligence").
Which leads to the question of how do we know what we know?
Specifically, knowing something by "proving it logically" vs knowing "by experience".
(BTW this seed is a topic that is extremely interesting to me....even more than politics!
(OMG!).
And one where I have numerous ideas-- as well as questions. So perhaps I see many, too many, tangents to go off on*.
________________________________________
*Of course as any teacher of grammar can tell you-- its always wrong to end a sentence a preposition with!
.
Which is why I posted it...
Of course on most Social Media sites a good portion of users is online for one reason only-- to argue that their opinions are right-- and to attempt to convince others. To prove people with different views are "wrong".
(Especially in the areas of politics and sometimes religion)
Wrong, this is an original article, not a seed.
Wrong, this is an original article, not a seed.
Whoops-- my mistake. True, It is indeed an original article!
So now that I "made a mistake"-- I have a choice!!!
Shall I admit it-- or shall I argue with you that I was right, and that it is a seed-- and then attempt to "prove" that you are wrong.
(All evidence to the contrary not withstanding).
And we see this every day where people try to defend an indefensibly wrong position. I just do not see what they think that will accomplish. It is as if they think people are too stupid to see the bullshit they are flinging.
Case in point, Trump's continued 'rigged' con.
Perhaps even going to extremes-- for example, name calling.
(Since I "Know" that it "is a seed"-- perhaps I should even begin name calling. Perhaps even going to the extreme of accusing you of being a "Socialist"!!! {gasp!})
Perhaps even accusing you of "TDS" (because you disagreed with my ( [obviously false]) statement).
Yes-- there's obviously more than a little sarcasm in this comment, heh
Ridiculous is it not? So why do people engage in these futile smokescreens and other tactics of intellectual dishonesty?
Ridiculous is it not? So why do people engage in these futile smokescreens and other tactics of intellectual dishonesty?
Excellent question!
Perhaps one reason is that they have a role model they admire? (even going beyond mere admiration even rising to the level of actual cult-like worship)
Some people have a need of some sort of cultish figure they worship-- who they consider to be better than us ordinary mortals. Infallible like some sort of "god"...?
Its a question of values. Some people (IMO a minority of people) are motivated by seeking the truth, they want to know the actual facts.
Others (IMO the majority) are more motivated by a strong need to have and rigidly adhere to, a strong Belief System-- no matter how false it might be.
Some prefer emotional comfort over intellectual honesty.
Especially if their grammer teacher Yoda was. But, any author can tell you that sometimes ending a sentence with a preposition can be effective and any poet can tell you it's the only rhyming word they could think of. And any lawyer will tell you there is always another side to a story.
I think that it really comes down to not knowing something that you feel that you should, then you double down when confronted because you can't take being wrong.
Why should a Trumpist change their mind?
They know they're right.
As noted elsewhere, a person can be curious and want to know. That is basic to most humans, I think. So, when we want to know something, we tend to ask others if they know, Depending on who we ask and the relative amount of faith that we put in their knowledge and/or opinion, we will then rank the information gained: It will be colored by association, so to speak. If we have numerous friends and they all feel the same way about something, especially if they feel very strongly about it, then the way of thinking will become embedded. This opinion or "knowledge" becomes belief.
We do this as much out of expediency as anything else. When we have a physical issue, we don't , go to med school and become an M.D., investigate, do studies, we go to someone who has already done this and ask them what is wrong. Likewise with other information, we go to trusted sources who we can get actionable information from.
Since the mid aught's (really since the early 1990's) the sources for the compilation of and distribution of general, factual knowledge have grown more fragmented and the distribution of that knowledge has become more diffuse, even though the means of distribution of knowledge has become much more readily available. That is, there are lots of sources of information out there, right at our fingertips, it just comes back to who do we trust to give us actionable information.
This is why the constant drone of "Fake news" from some hurts us as a whole. In a strange juxtaposition of beliefs and reality, the people who claim that some are giving fake news are actually giving the demonstrably false information, and the people who trust those sources are believing and acting on it.
It's the "want to know" clause that bothers me. I very much doubt that most people use the word "know" in the same way. Some mean "understand", but most mean "be able to cope with".
Public policy is enormously complex. IMNAAHO, no one is competent in all fields, not even the smartest, best educated experts. There's just too much.
So we all go through the process you described, to obtain "adequate" knowledge. "Adequate" is of course highly variable. You and I will just Google the subject, read an article or three, and we're golden. An expert will ask a few specialists.
A Trumpist? The Words of the Prophet are intrinsically more than adequate, they are The Truth. The Words of the Prophet are beyond discussion. Trumpists are "able to cope" with any and all topics because The Prophet has told them what to "understand".
Reality is unimportant, compared to The Truth. So... how can we discuss it?
What sources can be trusted?
Greg...
Formatting hint: When you have posted a quotation, the system will continue to format everything you type as a quotation, until you decide otherwise. For example, in your post just above, your question, "What sources can be trusted?", appears to be a quotation from Thomas. The remedy is simple: the quotation button (top left corner of the text edition box) is a rocker switch. If you press it on a quotation, the quotation becomes ordinary text..
Now... to your question...
You must decide which sources you will trust. What critiria? That's up to you,too.
Personally,I trust sources that aren't often wrong, and who retract when they are wrong. Retractions are rare...
Sources that provide information that is factual, corroborated and actionable are what I go for when I am looking at finding out what is going on in the word and deciding how I should react to it.
Factual means containing facts which are verifiable. One can verify facts by several methods, usually with several sources which is where the corroborated comes in. Actionable means that I can use the information gained to go about my daily business.
Some corroboration you have to watch out for, the most common is a posting on a website which is referenced in a circular manner. If you click the links that the story is supposedly about or search for it on the internet, all the stories will be referencing one another with no corroboration at all. It is kind of like the monkey pointing in both directions and saying," He went that-a-way!" There is no "there" there on those stories.
If you were meaning to ascertain the content of my news sources, over the years I have found NPR to be balanced. I read the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Christian Science Monitor, AP, Reuters, as well as several news-feeds. ABC, NBC and CBS are all fairly straightforward with their news. I used to watch the PBS Newshour, but I don't really have a TV and have not for the past I don't know how long. CNN is trying to be the Democratic FOX, so I keep that in mind the slant when viewing either of those sources. Really, I have no interest in either because I feel like they are trying to form my opinion for me instead of letting me decide how I feel (occasionally NPR will have a story where I am kind of feeling like that).
Tell me what happened. Period. Tell me the concrete effects of what happened.
NPR used to have Daniel Shore for a news analyst. People might not have agreed with him on subjects, but he was damn good at looking at what was happening, explaining why what was happening was happening, and then explaining why what was going to happen would happen. There are a lot of people who will talk a whole lot and purport to tell you these things, but Daniel was correct or almost the vast majority of the time. That is what is important: That they get the facts right the preponderance of the time, and tell you they didn't when they don't.
So Much of the internet news today is just garbage with an obvious political slant or axe to grind. I cannot stomach that type of news. That is not journalism, that is just propaganda pretending to be news. Occasionally I will run across a well sourced and reliable news story on the internet at large, but that is the very lonely exception to rule.
Who do you consider to be a reliable news source and why?
Not meaning to put words in Bob's mouth, but when Hillary lost, she lost and said that she lost. Trump lost and continues to say that he didn't. The election was free and fair, but Trump continues to insist he won the election and that it was rigged, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Trump is not factual: One cannot verify his claims but can verify counter claims.
Trump is not corroborated: One cannot corroborate his claims with provable, factual evidence. One can corroborate counterclaims with provable, factual evidence.
Trump Is not actionable. One cannot act with reasonable surety based upon information from him. Many, many other sources provide reporting that can be acted upon.
Of course. That's the whole point.
Did you read the seed?
The problem, as I see it, is that we're not using the same meanings for the words we're using.
When you say Trump is not factual, you assume that that precludes anyone believing him. That's not the case. For a Trumpist, the Word of the Prophet is Truth, beyond trivial factuality.
You, personally, may exclude a source previously considered "trusted", if the source is often wrong. A Trumpist would not, because accuracy is not a significant critirion for what they "trust". If friends and neighbors trust it, then the Trumpist trusts it.
This is why it doesn't matter that Fox is frequently demonstrably wrong. Fox has been designated as "trusted". End of story.
No. I do not assume that at all. I know he is not factual because I see the disconnect between what he says and reality. Others, for whatever reason, do not.
Double-down and stand beside .
This should be the key... but I don't believe that most people ever really think. "Thinking", IMNAAHO, means something like:
I don't mean that there's any need to actually label these steps. VERY few people go so far. But most people do nothing like that.
Most people ask their friends and neighbors, and adopt the same position. They do not "think" at all. They copy.
Since they have not elaborated their position through any thought process, they cannot debate the topic.
In order to change their minds, they'd have to "betray" the friends and neighbors whose opinions they've been copying. And worse... they'd have to recognize that they have not been thinking, only copying.
How do we persuade them to this betrayal?
Indeed.
copy that
For journalists, yes, it makes a difference. For posters' on internet Forums such as this one, meh. There are several here who would seemingly die for their seeded articles, even after they have been proven to be inaccurate and misleading or just plain false.