How much data do you require before you accept something as "fact"?
-
I'm like 90% sure this is sarcastic, but you never know.
Maybe the person in chat is a troll. May e the person is a die hard fanatic.
We will never know...
-
I'm like 90% sure this is sarcastic, but you never know.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Like, i found this youtube channel from the video "mom founf the yaoi". And now its latest video is about the rapture? Its just morse code, this description, and 2 links in the comments.
As soon as i get home, im yt-dlp this channel to preserve this.
-
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
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
-
This post did not contain any content.
When a lot of people who have nothing to do with each other say the same thing.
When people who dedicate their life to this one thing say the same.
When I can come to the same conclusion based on the reasoning behind it
When it is repeatable.
Then I going to accept it as a fact otherwise it is just something someone has said.
-
I'm like 90% sure this is sarcastic, but you never know.
It's sarcasm
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'll colloquially use the word "fact" for extremely well supported claims, but in my head the only actual "facts" are mathematical derivations. Evidence supports the veracity of a claim, and a claim with a lot of evidence gets a tentative place in my world model, but any of those claims can be refuted by sufficient counter-evidence
-
This post did not contain any content.
when science backs it up.
-
Reading it once on social media
Yes, but only if it matches my current beliefs.
-
If your hypothesis is "all swans are white", and I show you a black swan, do you reject your hypothesis?
Tell you what, you define right and left, I will define the center of it if that will help you wrap your brain around it. Otherwise I have no idea what it is you are trying to accomplish other than starting a zero sum fight so unless you get it together I'm out.
-
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?
-
when science backs it up.
What happens when "science" backs up two opposing ideas with sufficient evidence and logic to make either seem plausible?
-
when science backs it up.
Science rules!
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
At least 4.
-
What happens when "science" backs up two opposing ideas with sufficient evidence and logic to make either seem plausible?
Have you got an example?
-
What happens when "science" backs up two opposing ideas with sufficient evidence and logic to make either seem plausible?
Then the science isn't done evaluating the opposing ideas. That's the beauty of science, it can be proven wrong and still work.
-
Like, i found this youtube channel from the video "mom founf the yaoi". And now its latest video is about the rapture? Its just morse code, this description, and 2 links in the comments.
As soon as i get home, im yt-dlp this channel to preserve this.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I have no earthly idea what you're talking about (replied in the wrong place, maybe?), but that is some prime internet weirdness.
-
I have no earthly idea what you're talking about (replied in the wrong place, maybe?), but that is some prime internet weirdness.
Not sure if people on the internet are doing a bit for the funnies, or actually serious with what the believe.
-
Have you got an example?
Off the top of my head string theory is a good example of numerous competing hypothesis that seem plausible given the data.
-
Then the science isn't done evaluating the opposing ideas. That's the beauty of science, it can be proven wrong and still work.
How can Science be proven wrong and still work? That is not at all how Science works.
