How much data do you require before you accept something as "fact"?
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
Depending on the fact I should be able to find sources for it on .ORG and .GOV sites.
If i just find random blog posts, or facebook groups in the search results I take it with a grain of salt.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
At least 400 kilobyte.
-
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.
Yep, that's a big part of it..
But there's other aspects too (see my other comment replying to Arkouda)
-
This post did not contain any content.
Depends if I agree with it.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I read proper peer reviewed research. I'm usually not a specialist on the subject, so I am unable to properly process any data available.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
It's not so much the amount as the quality.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Logical proof, is it reasonable and do peers agree. That could be a tiny amount of data or a large amount of data. It is specific to the "something".
-
This post did not contain any content.
Facts are hard to confirm, bullshit tends to reveal itself.
So I have try not to cling to tightly to any given "fact", in case new evidence arrives.
That said, is can be surprisingly easy to navigate many parts of life simply by avoiding confirmed bullshit.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Hume had something like the wise apportion their confidence to the evidence, and Carl Sagan's extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence can apply. So if those are true the quality and type of data is going to depend on the claim of fact (friend says they bought a dog vs a dragon), and the amount of evidence depends on the claim and your general standard of evidence. If you're lowering or raising your standards for a specific claim that's usually going to mean there's a bias for or against it.
tl;dr 42 pieces of data
-
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".
-
How so? Seemed reasonable enough for the few things I checked.
They're incredibly pro-Israel and anti-anything else in the middle east. Reputable information gets a lower reliability rating from them "just because".
-
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
-
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?
I just showed you an example of where "centre" as commonly defined is not between left and right, but opposed by both..
I guess the point is, I think those definitions are deficient, and using them as a guide to understanding what is good or true is probably a flawed methodology. It's kind of reminiscent of Fox News' old "fair and balanced" slogan (which never was, but also just missed the point of what journalism is supposed to be about, which is truth).
-
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.
-
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?
