Truth vs bullshit

[hawtsean]

In another thread, this post was noted:

Hey, I just made a casual comment, after which all the misinformed came out and jumped all over me. ................ If you want to further discussion on a new topic, open a new thread.

NO SOONER SAID THAN DONE!

Alright, so let's put this out there: anytime someone voices their opinion, that is great. I am sincerely in favour of hearing opinions on everything.

BUT

Opinions are not necessarily truth. That is the first and most critically important point to note in any discussion. Just uttering something does not make it so. Advocating a particular point of view is fantastic, offering a reasoned defense of one's views is terrific. However asserting that something is true, proven and recognized as such, can only be done when the statement is really true. It matters not if all your friends agree with you; nor does it matter if great masses of humanity agree with you - truth is still truth and numbers don't change it. Accusing others of being misinformed, merely because they disagree with unproven assertions, is foolishness.

Basic example:

Dude #1 states: 'the sky is apple green with purple and pink squares'. Okay, regardless of how silly that might be, the dude states that. At this point, it's his opinion.

Dude #2 states: 'c'mon guy, just look outside, the sky ain't that colour at all'

Dude #1 then proceeds to assert that the sky really is that colour, since his buddies, the neighbourhood where he lives, and even his social club of 5 thousand others agree with his statement. Further, if you oppose him and demand he prove it by looking outside at the sky, he accuses you of being misinformed, and possibly of joining a conspiracy to hide his truth from others.

Theatre of the absurd, right? Well this same nutty stuff happens all the time here on this board and everywhere else. Political statements, scientific statements, and a host of other assertions are uttered which are totally without proof, baseless, and often intentionally misleading. When the speakers of those statements are asked to prove what they say, they seem to take recourse to the might-is-right theory......"well everyone who knows says that I am right". Sadly, those who lack the understanding or motivation to do their own research and to investigate, are duped into believing those who shout loud and claim that the majority think the same way.

Even further, those shouters insinuate that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid, or that they lack all the information, and that those who disagree are conspiring to suppress their truth. WTF ever happened to proving one's words with actual facts.......facts that can be researched and validated over and over again? Has the internet, with its ability to instantly communicate text to millions, become the new basis for scamming and deceit? I definitely don't advocate a return to pre-internet times, but there is a danger in suddenly being able to keyboard words and have them appear in the public, without any requirement of proof. Ego gratification is wonderful, but at what cost?

Wiki-type sites are great for pointing an inquirer in a general direction. Often, they can fulfill the need for quick info. However, there is no one truly overseeing those type of sites to ensure that only correct info is displayed. I have seen so many wikipedia entries that are total bullshit without any factual basis, that its become a joke to me. Whenever something pops up on the net that sounds bogus, I refer to it as "another wiki fact".

I mourn the apparent loss of an important societal value ---- that one needs to prove what one says, or be called a liar.

 

[c750dt]

We all have our own opinions and, deep down, there are things that may be wrong but some of us just know is right because we're unable to shift our mind or we haven't had experience.

We all base our opinions on what we believe works for us. Also, what's right in one place may be wrong in another. Many times, multiple things are right but we only accept one of those ways.

In my opinion, that's the basis for proper debate and as long as a basic level of decorum is maintained, a good debate does the noble job of expanding knowledge. Multiple people voice their opinion and why they support that viewpoint. Knowledge is exchanged and witnesses of debate are able to take in multiple trains of thought and make decisions on their own. The system works well enough for the court though there are always flaws here and there that short the system somewhat.

Ultimately, we get a basis for educated guesses to help guide us and become more efficient going into the the ultimate display of right vs. wrong which would be trail and error and real life experience.

We just need to keep things impersonal, not take a single statement too seriously and know the difference between an opinion and a troll. The beauty of an internet forum is that anything you don't want to be near is just as easily avoided as simply not clicking.

 

[hawtsean]

We all base our opinions on what we believe works for us. Also, what's right in one place may be wrong in another. Many times, multiple things are right but we only accept one of those ways.

No quarrel with that. My point is that one cannot state "THIS IS TRUE" and expect everyone to instantly accept it without proof or validation. Prove that it's true, and I will come on board. Much of what I wrote in this rant was directed at statements of a assertive type - those that say "thus and thus is an absolute, everyone knows it, and if you don't agree you are against me". Further, those declarative statements are never backed up with any proof, even when challenged.

We just need to keep things impersonal, not take a single statement too seriously

Well then, how do you propose that we sift out truth from trolls? If someone makes a statement, should they not be prepared to back it up? Or should the general attitude toward the internet be one of disbelief? Yeah, I can easily differentiate between good-natured jesting and the rest; but where should the line be drawn to protect the public from intentional deceit and misdirection?

 

[c750dt]

Common sense and a sense of moderation. Unless the issue is black and white (for example, I were to state the sun is hot and fiery), take statements with a grain of salt and if you blindly believe something without getting backup and doing some research, prepare to be made out as an ass sometime in the future.

You can't apply a single set of rules or guidelines to every situation as it's very common for a different problem to have a different solution. You just have to employ use of your brain. You also must judge what you consider worth participating in and what's worth ignoring.

 

[hawtsean]

Common sense and a sense of moderation. Unless the issue is black and white (for example, I were to state the sun is hot and fiery), take statements with a grain of salt and if you blindly believe something without getting backup and doing some research, prepare to be made out as an ass sometime in the future.

You can't apply a single set of rules or guidelines to every situation as it's very common for a different problem to have a different solution. You just have to employ use of your brain. You also must judge what you consider worth participating in and what's worth ignoring.

Good response, and thanks I fervently wish that what you state in your first paragraph was more closely followed by more of those who read and believe whatever they see.

 

[gb2000ie]

To me it's very simple - everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts!

You cannot have an opinion on the colour of the sky, or the dangers of electricity, or the temperature water freezes at. Those are facts, they are not open to opinion.

No one deserves any respect for saying the sky is green, that's bullshit plain and simple!

Where discussion breaks down is when facts are ignored and every dis-proven piece of bullshit is considered "equally as valid". You see this so much on TV these days, they call it 'balance', but it's bullshit!

B.

 

[gb2000ie]

I think this clip says what I have to say better (and more entertainingly) than I ever could:

 

[hawtsean]

I think this clip says what I have to say better (and more entertainingly) than I ever could:

Bart, if you have a source for more of Dara O'Briain's stuff, please PM me - he's spot on and damned funny at it!

 

[gb2000ie]

Bart, if you have a source for more of Dara O'Briain's stuff, please PM me - he's spot on and damned funny at it!

He's one of Ireland's best exports

Best I can recommend is a search on YouTube - there are entire stand-up shows there including this great one: http://anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYBWA7wX_LM (in 9 parts)

 

[hawtsean]

He's one of Ireland's best exports

Best I can recommend is a search on YouTube - there are entire stand-up shows there including this great one: http://anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYBWA7wX_LM (in 9 parts)

Downloading/capturing them now, and will sit back to enjoy in a bit. T Y:cheers:

 

[sheogoroth]

When the speakers of those statements are asked to prove what they say, they seem to take recourse to the might-is-right theory......"well everyone who knows says that I am right". Sadly, those who lack the understanding or motivation to do their own research and to investigate, are duped into believing those who shout loud and claim that the majority think the same way.

To a certain extent, I agree, sure.

But there are things where I think it's fairly acceptable to go with what "everyone who knows" says. For instance, I don't have a particle accelerator. I'd like to, but I don't. Those things are expensive. So when a physicist tells me that he's discovered a quark in his particle accelerator, and a bunch of other physicists go, "yeah, he totally discovered one. I saw it too." I believe them. I could break into Brookhaven National Lab and do the experiment myself in the dead of night, but that seems excessive and dangerous and illegal, and the research has been done and peer reviewed and that's all I need, personally.

People don't have the time or the ability to do the research themselves on every topic. It's just not feasible. So we instead rely on experts in their fields to let us know the results of their research. We rely on things like the Pew Research Center to conduct polls. We don't send out polls ourselves, each and every one of us. That would be crazy.

Now, that's not to say that all experts are equal in their expertise. And if you want to debate that, that's another story. If those people are lying, or they're wrong, or they're not actually experts, it's perfectly fine to counter with that. But to say that "everyone who knows says I'm right" is not a valid argument is silly. Don't demand that they split a proton themselves and then get back to you.

 

[gb2000ie]

TBut to say that "everyone who knows says I'm right" is not a valid argument is silly. Don't demand that they split a proton themselves and then get back to you.

I agree with almost everything you wrote - except this bit.

"everyone says" is never a good argument - ever, people need to be specific, they need to cite a source. It can be as simple as Wikipedia, or the name of a scientist, or a science book, just be honest and say how you know. Like you say, I don't have to split an atom, I just have to tell you that Nobel Prize winner Ernest Rutherford did it, and it's been done millions of times since in every*nuclear power-plant out there, and in nuclear bombs.

And I don't think this is limited to science. "I think there is an alternative to violence" holds infinitely less weight than "Ghandi and Dr. King have demonstrated that there is a non-violent alternative".

We all have to rely on others for our information, so the least we can do is say who or what we're relying on.

B.

 

[hawtsean]

To a certain extent, I agree, sure.

But there are things where I think it's fairly acceptable to go with what "everyone who knows" says. For instance, I don't have a particle accelerator. I'd like to, but I don't.

Sheogoroth, your example makes a point, but I feel you are over-extrapolating from what I have said here. In matters of absolutes like science, medicine and technology, I agree that citing the name of a recognized expert is usually sufficient. Then, if you and I differ on the outcome or interpretation of their experiments, we can cross-cite our fav specialists and see who has the most recent and validated data.

But when a political or societal issue arises, for example, one cannot fall back on the "everyone who knows" dictum. So my point is that one needs to cite the where and how they derive their info if challenged as to their statement. A number of political threads in this forum contain posts that assert the rightness or wrongness of one side of an issue - and make sweeping accusations against other points of view as being conspiratorial if they disagree. When asked for specific proof of who said what, suddenly the posts went dead quiet. That's why I choose to act in a "proof whore" manner - no proof, then it's phony baloney. Show me the money...as the line went in the film Jerry Maguire

 

[sheogoroth]

I agree with almost everything you wrote - except this bit.

"everyone says" is never a good argument - ever, people need to be specific, they need to cite a source. It can be as simple as Wikipedia, or the name of a scientist, or a science book, just be honest and say how you know. Like you say, I don't have to split an atom, I just have to tell you that Nobel Prize winner Ernest Rutherford did it, and it's been done millions of times since in every*nuclear power-plant out there, and in nuclear bombs.

And I don't think this is limited to science. "I think there is an alternative to violence" holds infinitely less weight than "Ghandi and Dr. King have demonstrated that there is a non-violent alternative".

We all have to rely on others for our information, so the least we can do is say who or what we're relying on.

B.

Well sure. I mean, obviously, be specific, I think we're on the same page there. I was just using "everyone who knows" (not, "everyone knows") as a stand-in for whatever specific experts apply to the discussion at hand.

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

I mostly agree with H-sean's original post, but I think something needs to be said in defence of Wikipedia.

It's true that "there is no one overseeing Wikipedia to ensure that only correct facts are posted." That would be impossible, and also pointless, since it would be effectively just one person's blog. Anyone can state anything on Wikipedia; however, there is a mechanism that encourages the use of citations. Anyone can insert a comment to the effect that the article lacks citations and should have them.

Of course you might want to check the citations to make sure THEY are reputable, but in that respect it's no so different from traditional academic writing. If someone states a premise that could be contentious, they are expected to either describe their own research which led them to that conclusion (if it's their own work) or state the source they got it from (if it's someone else's work). So someone COULD post that the sky is purple and yellow and grey with pink squares, and drum up a few dozen friends to support his contention, along with a few doctored photos... but - assuming anyone took it seriously - there would shortly be many more people protesting that they have seen the sky with their own eyes and it's always blue except in rare cases like a dust storm or at sunrise or sunset, plus possibly a few reputable scientists presenting spectrographic readings that show the light to be indeed in the blue part of the spectrum, etc etc. The controversy would fade away very quickly, if indeed it ever got started.

In this respect Wikipedia is somewhat different from someone simply voicing an opinion on Twitter or Facebook.

 

[hawtsean]

I mostly agree with H-sean's original post, but I think something needs to be said in defence of Wikipedia.

It's true that "there is no one overseeing Wikipedia to ensure that only correct facts are posted." That would be impossible, and also pointless, since it would be effectively just one person's blog. Anyone can state anything on Wikipedia; however, there is a mechanism that encourages the use of citations. Anyone can insert a comment to the effect that the article lacks citations and should have them.

Thanks OZ. My concern about Wikipedia and all the other free-post info pages, is that unlike a published text or a website specifically named as the spokesmodel for a given enterprise, no one is there to be accountable for mistakes. If a scientist publishes their work, they name themselves and any co-contributors. If what they publish and assert is bogus and disproven by others, well they have to take ownership and face the music. The rest of the scientific community (and the world at large) can see who published what, and when.

With Wiki, there are pages with glaring errors in them, items touted as fact that simply are not. But no one is there to be accountable for the potential havoc wreaked by such misinformation. It's not good enough to fix it after the fact, if wiki is supposed to be a factual resource. Were you or I to intentionally misinform our employers about critical info, we might very well get fired. But no one stands up and declares that they are the watchdog of wiki and will accept responsibility. Of course no one could do so, with the pages open to public change.

That is the root of my distrust of such sites. Yes, I use wiki, but only to review generalized info on a subject. I also know enough to verify through other sources the info that seems new or never before seen. It seems that the internet has taken society away from depending upon trusted factual references, and substituted "whatever" in its place.

 

[gb2000ie]

I also want to defend wikipedia, because it is indeed not over-seen by one person, but by an entire community. Studies have been done on the accuracy of wikipedia, and it holds up very well, about the same as paper encyclopaedias in fact. Don't knock the open source effect - there are more good people on this world than bad people, hence Linux is not full of security exploits, and hence wikipedia is actually a great starting point for any research.

Some key points other than the community effect and the known metrics:
1) articles that are controversial are marked as such, so you have fair warning
2) you can see the full history of every page, and all the past versions that have ever existed
3) wikipedia is very good an enforcing a requirement for citations to back up claims, so the bibliography at the bottom of an article is a fantastic resource both for judging the article's quality, and for finding sources of further reading.

Finally - in a wonderful twist of irony - here's what wikipedia has to say about the reliability of wikipedia (complete with 190 citations):

http://anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

B.

 

[hawtsean]

I also want to defend wikipedia, because it is indeed not over-seen by one person, but by an entire community......
wikipedia is very good an enforcing a requirement for citations to back up claims, so the bibliography at the bottom of an article is a fantastic resource both for judging the article's quality, and for finding sources of further reading.

Bart, all this is true, no dispute. However the diehard cynic in me sees the number of cached pages in Google and other search engines, and I despair at how easily an error-laden page will be cached, with the potential for some surfer to not view the corrected version.

Certainly Britannica and other 'cyclopedias publish errors, and it often takes a long time before a correction or updated version comes around. The difference is that people are affording very high acceptance of wiki pages, without any second thought..............and they are basing major life decisions and sometimes their lives on very tenuous material, something not historically done with printed paper reference books. The issue seems to be that ANY thing on wiki is taken as gospel truth by many of its users. I have heard countless repetitions of the mantra: "well it's on the internet so it must be okay". It presumes some kind of cyber watchdog that isn't in existence. That scares me.

 

[gb2000ie]

Bart, all this is true, no dispute. However the diehard cynic in me sees the number of cached pages in Google and other search engines, and I despair at how easily an error-laden page will be cached, with the potential for some surfer to not view the corrected version.

Certainly Britannica and other 'cyclopedias publish errors, and it often takes a long time before a correction or updated version comes around. The difference is that people are affording very high acceptance of wiki pages, without any second thought..............and they are basing major life decisions and sometimes their lives on very tenuous material, something not historically done with printed paper reference books. The issue seems to be that ANY thing on wiki is taken as gospel truth by many of its users. I have heard countless repetitions of the mantra: "well it's on the internet so it must be okay". It presumes some kind of cyber watchdog that isn't in existence. That scares me.

That has nothing to do with wikipedia - it is MUCH easier to set up your own website to spread your lies than to try to get your lies into wikipedia.

What it sounds like you're afraid of is the fact that our kids are not being given the skills to evaluate information. The net is full of information, and the life skill that will be most important in the future is the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to information.

The information on wikipedia is MUCH better than the information in a random web search - it is curated. It may not be perfectly curated, but it is curated.

B.

 

[hawtsean]

What it sounds like you're afraid of is the fact that our kids are not being given the skills to evaluate information. The net is full of information, and the life skill that will be most important in the future is the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to information.
B.

A little self-examination here, and you may be right. I don't personally fear misinfo or bullshit........it's that so many people can't figure out the difference between it and the good stuff.