How do you decide what is fact and what is fiction?

[viole]

science, evidence, fact checking, few things are so subjective and unreliable!

As long as we recognize our faith, in whatever it is we believe, we cannot stray nearly as far wrong, as we do when we accept someone else's subjective opinion as 'scientific fact'

Is that valid for believer in Allah, Zeus or the great Juju at the bottom of the sea, too?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Fact checking, science, evidence are things that are subjective an unreliable?

Then how do you decide what is true? You are an enigma to me; your facts, to me, are so eschew, devoid of logic, unsupportable by any evidence whatsoever, subjective or otherwise. Most of what you claim is, anyway.

So let's start with you, I guess:

You believe in a creator; that our existence was intelligently designed by some creator deity.

By what process did you come to this conclusion? If "science, evidence, fact checking" are subjective and unreliable, then by what means do you determine that there is, indeed, a creator deity?

I am not wishing to argue the merits of such a claim; I simply want to try to understand how you, and others like you, reach that conclusion!

Same as you, by science, evidence, fact checking, logic etc- yet we come to two opposite conclusions right?, Just as distinguished scientists like Lemaitre and Hoyle did, so these things are subjective are they not?

And so I acknowledge my faith, belief, as such, that it cannot be objectively proven, how about you?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Same as you, by science, evidence, fact checking, logic etc- yet we come to two opposite conclusions right?, Just as distinguished scientists like Lemaitre and Hoyle did, so these things are subjective are they not?

And so I acknowledge my faith, belief, as such, that it cannot be objectively proven, how about you?

You do fact checking? Lessee, my fact checking says that the "academic elite" knew the world was round and the "common man" did not; you have that reversed. My logic dictates that if a god can create a static universe, he can create an expanding universe; thus "big bang" does not establish a "creation event" nor a "creative intelligence".

Lemaitre and Hoyle were working on the information that they had at the time. Such information such as background cosmic radiation and redshift of receding galaxies discovered by the Hubbel Telescope. Each made an objective opinion based on the evidence at their disposal. You use dissenting opinions as a method by which to discredit science in its entirety; unless, of course, it happens to agree with you, then you are pro-science all the way.

So I certainly don't see you doing any fact checking; I see you using science only when it has the appearance of validating what you already believe; and I see you using selection bias in your "evidence".

I find it hard to accept that you reach your conclusions by "science evidence, fact checking or logic".

I concede that my stance as a "hard atheist" is a belief-based stand; but I don't coin it as "faith".

 

[Erebus]

As one who subscribes and values science (as little as I understand it), verifiable evidence, logic (as little as I understand it), fact checking, etc; I find it perplexing how many who do not hold to such ideals decide what is real and what is not real.

If I were to say to you any given number of things; whatever that may be; how do you decide if I am truthful or if what I'm saying is a possibility, etc?

While I'm far more inclined to take the word of a scientist over a preacher, I rarely make use of my (limited) scientific understanding to determine reality.

I suspect I distinguish between real and not real in the same way most people do. Some of it's based on experience, some of it's arbitrary, most of it's just an ongoing unconscious process.

Think about your day-to-day life, how much does the scientific method, verifiable evidence and logic actually play a part in you determining what's real or not? I very much doubt you feel the need to check that the floor isn't just a hallucination before you step on it. In all likelihood, you probably make use of what scientific knowledge you possess very infrequently too.

As for your last question, I tend to assume that most of what I read on this forum more or less accurately reflects a person's viewpoint at that particular time. If you were to tell me that you like the colour blue, I wouldn't see much reason to disbelieve you. Of course, context is also important. Given the conversation we're having, I feel I have less reason to believe you than usual if you claimed to like the colour blue.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You do fact checking? Lessee, my fact checking says that the "academic elite" knew the world was round and the "common man" did not; you have that reversed. My logic dictates that if a god can create a static universe, he can create an expanding universe; thus "big bang" does not establish a "creation event" nor a "creative intelligence".

Well sailors, fishermen probably had that figured out before anyone, but it's subjectivity again. Before socialism, the common Russian farmer knew how to feed much of Europe with their practical knowledge, the academic elites stepped in with their superior science and millions starved to death.

and you could have argued your point with atheists, again it was they who made that connection- and between a creation and a creator, and it's not difficult to see why

The Bible depicted a specific creation event, atheists a static, un-created universe.

Lemaitre and Hoyle were working on the information that they had at the time. Such information such as background cosmic radiation and redshift of receding galaxies discovered by the Hubbel Telescope. Each made an objective opinion based on the evidence at their disposal. You use dissenting opinions as a method by which to discredit science in its entirety; unless, of course, it happens to agree with you, then you are pro-science all the way.

Again, Hoyle still rejected the Big Bang long after it was proven beyond reasonable doubt for most. Difficult to accept something you already mocked as 'religious pseudoscience'!

So I certainly don't see you doing any fact checking; I see you using science only when it has the appearance of validating what you already believe; and I see you using selection bias in your "evidence".

I find it hard to accept that you reach your conclusions by "science evidence, fact checking or logic".

I concede that my stance as a "hard atheist" is a belief-based stand; but I don't coin it as "faith".

I make a distinction between science the method and science the academic opinion- these are often diametrically opposed.
I think the former is a little more objective and supports God all the way. The latter is more subjective and has distinct atheist leanings in certain areas like cosmogony.

I was raised with a hard atheist stance which I held for several decades, so for me it was the evidence, logic as I saw it, that didn't fit what I already believed.

So I can prove one thing: My opinion on this is totally unreliable!

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Think about your day-to-day life, how much does the scientific method, verifiable evidence and logic actually play a part in you determining what's real or not? I very much doubt you feel the need to check that the floor isn't just a hallucination before you step on it. In all likelihood, you probably make use of what scientific knowledge you possess very infrequently too.

This may be true for many, or most people; but even as a kid, I always had the propensity to want to know "why" or to see things for myself. I'm the kind who petted a dog after someone told me it would bite; or put my hand near (or on) the stove to see if Mom really knew what she was talking about that it was hot; I wasn't satisfied to know that airpanes flew, I had to know why they flew. When someone told me "don't mix bleach and ammonia", I had to find out why; and when someone told me not to mix Drano and Liquid Plummer due to an energetic chemical reaction between the two, I was dubious of the claim and had to research it. I think that people use what we knw about science much more than what many responders in this thread are indicating.

Besides, we're not just talking about "science"; we're talking about "How do you decide if 9/11 conspiracy theories are true or not?" This is actually a very important topic; as how we decide that afffects our conclusion; and that conclusion has a direct impact on how we see our government and our place under the authority of that same government.

We're talking about how we decide if "Columbus set sail to prove that the world was round" is true or not; becaue the conclusion we reach has an impact on how we view history and on our ideas of what people in the 1400's were like.

We're talkng about how we decide if "Champ, Loch Ness and Bigfoot are real" as this has a direct impact on how we view the natural world around us.

We're talking about how we decide if "The Illuminati are trying to take over the world" are true or not, as our conclusion on that statement has a direct impact on how we view current world events (and how we respond to it).

We're talking about how we decide if "Ghosts are spirits who can't pass on" as this has a direct impract on how we view ourselves, the nature of humanity; and has sobering and possibly negative consequences on how we view death and the consequences of death.

We're talking about how we decide tf "The diversity of species is explained by the Theory of Evolution" as the answer to that question has a direct impact on how we view the workings of divinity (for those who acccept both a "creator" and the theory of evolution), and the nature of life itself.

So when I ask, "How do you decide what is true and what is not true", this far supercedes science.

What we believe to be true; and how we attain that conclusion; has direct impracts on our mental and emotional health, our "spirituality" and our view of ourselves and our place in existence.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Facts are based on empirical evidence. Fictions are based on wishful thinking.

 

[Riverwolf]

What about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table? There are clearly fictional tales about them, but many people say he may have been a real person.

"May have been" being the key phrase.

As a Legendary King (one of many), there may be some historicity behind the story, though it's worth remembering that Knights as we understand them today didn't exist during the time that King Arthur was supposed to have lived. From what I've seen, the most likely scenario is that he's based on a myriad of figures, historical and folkloric. But the one we all know, from Le Morte D'arthur, is anachronistic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If I were to say to you any given number of things; whatever that may be; how do you decide if I am truthful or if what I'm saying is a possibility, etc?

If useful, I would make a presumption based on a sense of likelihood informed by study and experience.

 

[Erebus]

This may be true for many, or most people; but even as a kid, I always had the propensity to want to know "why" or to see things for myself. I'm the kind who petted a dog after someone told me it would bite; or put my hand near (or on) the stove to see if Mom really knew what she was talking about that it was hot; I wasn't satisfied to know that airpanes flew, I had to know why they flew. When someone told me "don't mix bleach and ammonia", I had to find out why; and when someone told me not to mix Drano and Liquid Plummer due to an energetic chemical reaction between the two, I was dubious of the claim and had to research it. I think that people use what we knw about science much more than what many responders in this thread are indicating.

Besides, we're not just talking about "science"; we're talking about "How do you decide if 9/11 conspiracy theories are true or not?" This is actually a very important topic; as how we decide that afffects our conclusion; and that conclusion has a direct impact on how we see our government and our place under the authority of that same government.

We're talking about how we decide if "Columbus set sail to prove that the world was round" is true or not; becaue the conclusion we reach has an impact on how we view history and on our ideas of what people in the 1400's were like.

We're talkng about how we decide if "Champ, Loch Ness and Bigfoot are real" as this has a direct impact on how we view the natural world around us.

We're talking about how we decide if "The Illuminati are trying to take over the world" are true or not, as our conclusion on that statement has a direct impact on how we view current world events (and how we respond to it).

We're talking about how we decide if "Ghosts are spirits who can't pass on" as this has a direct impract on how we view ourselves, the nature of humanity; and has sobering and possibly negative consequences on how we view death and the consequences of death.

We're talking about how we decide tf "The diversity of species is explained by the Theory of Evolution" as the answer to that question has a direct impact on how we view the workings of divinity (for those who acccept both a "creator" and the theory of evolution), and the nature of life itself.

So when I ask, "How do you decide what is true and what is not true", this far supercedes science.

What we believe to be true; and how we attain that conclusion; has direct impracts on our mental and emotional health, our "spirituality" and our view of ourselves and our place in existence.

While this was eloquently put, I feel you're not quite getting the point I was trying to make.

You may have been the kid who needed to put your hand on the stove yourself to see if it was hot. Were you also the kid who had to ensure his clothes actually existed? Did you need to verify your skin was real?

We decide what's real or what isn't unconsciously and automatically every day of our lives. Sometimes we do it arbitrarily or simply because we're conditioned by past experience. I just noticed something flicker in the corner of my eye. I decided it was likely a product of tiredness. I decided this without feeling the need to investigate further to confirm that it wasn't a ghost or demon.

Unless you research everything around you constantly, you simply aren't using any conscious method of determining reality 99.9% of the time.

Now, you've said that our belief or disbelief in conspiracies, spirits and so forth is important, as is how we arrive at our conclusions. Fair enough, I can respect that. When it comes to deciding what's real or not though, topics like that are rarely a consideration. Really, they're dwarfed by the sheer amount of stuff we filter through with every passing second.

So when you ask, "How do you decide what is fact or fiction?"

My answer is simply that I almost never do and neither do you.

 

[Riverwolf]

This may be true for many, or most people; but even as a kid, I always had the propensity to want to know "why" or to see things for myself. I'm the kind who petted a dog after someone told me it would bite; or put my hand near (or on) the stove to see if Mom really knew what she was talking about that it was hot; I wasn't satisfied to know that airpanes flew, I had to know why they flew. When someone told me "don't mix bleach and ammonia", I had to find out why; and when someone told me not to mix Drano and Liquid Plummer due to an energetic chemical reaction between the two, I was dubious of the claim and had to research it. I think that people use what we knw about science much more than what many responders in this thread are indicating.
...

What we believe to be true; and how we attain that conclusion; has direct impracts on our mental and emotional health, our "spirituality" and our view of ourselves and our place in existence.

Put another way, our beliefs inform our behavior. When I was a Hindu, I tended to be much more gentle, kindly, and submissive; I was severely depressed. As a Heathen now, I'm far more assertive, argumentative, and irreverent; I'm recovering from depression (key word: "recovering").

But even when it comes to health, I could easily argue (and for the record, I'm not; this is just a hypothetical example that doesn't actually seem to be the case) that your unwillingness to trust that others know what they're talking about with such mundane things could be an indication of serious trust issues, which could severely hinder your ability to even have basic social interactions.

In America, we glorify and celebrate the Rebel who fights against the Status Quo, to invent the New Thing despite being mocked by society, or goes out to adventure into New Lands despite the jeers of their peers, or fights against the evil oppressive government/corporation despite the whole world being against them. We are, to borrow a song title, the Sons and Daughters of Robin Hood.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Well sailors, fishermen probably had that figured out before anyone, but it's subjectivity again.

Probably? Not only is that pure subjectivity, its a wild guess ... nothing more.

Let me ask you something: By what logic do you suppose that the (educated) Spanish royalty funded an expedition to sail West from Spain just to fall off the earth/ The answer is: They DIDN'T. They already knew the world was round; a question that had been settled since the ages of Greek philosophers; again, the educated elite.

Here is a bit of what historians have to say on the matter;

The myth of the flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages in Europe saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.[1][2]

During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior ofHieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[3]

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[4] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[5]

Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-Earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat", and ascribes popularization of the flat-Earth myth to histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving.[6][7][2]

So, again, you reverse history; that it was over religious objection to Evolution that the "flat earth" stuff re-emerged; that the question of the shape of the earth was settled (among scholars, not the common masses) during the Middle Ages (thus Columbus, an educated man by the standards of the day, knew). And the reason why the masses are threatened to be plunged back into the age of ignorance equivalent to 500 years BCE was because of religion.

I don not understand how you have reached your conclusion. Perhaps you can help me with that. Do you draw a conclusion then cherry pick historical information to substantiate your conclusion, dismissing evidence to the contrary, labelling it "subjective?

gain, Hoyle still rejected the Big Bang long after it was proven beyond most reasonable doubt to most. Difficult to accept something you already mocked as 'religious pseudoscience'!

Since when is Hoyle the "spokesperson" for atheism? As you were too lazy to conduct your own research and validate your claims, I, as I did above, did so for you. It appears that Hoyle's objection was based on religious grounds. Stephen Hawkings, Richard Dawkins, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Mikel Kaiku; all atheists and/or agnostics --- support the Big Bang theory and Expanding Universe. Albert Einstein, a deist (though did not believe in a personal God) also intially rejected an expanding universe.

Your postulating that the division between "steady state" and "expanding universe" models are on purey religius grounds does not stand up to scrutiny. I fail to hold this to be true. In light of the opposing evidence I have suggested here, why do you maintain this to be true? I don't understand. Perhaps you can help me understand.

Before socialism, the common Russian farmer knew how to feed much of Europe with their practical knowledge, the academic elites stepped in with their superior science and millions starved to death.

Since you are too lazy to research this, I will. Can you give me a little more information; a name, dates, something; to assist me in researching this? I know that YOU won't provide sources or verification for your information; so I guess I have to do it myself.

The Bible depicted a specific creation event, atheists a static, un-created universe.

I think I have already addressed this crap. I'm sure, before Lamtre, the religious also held a "steady state" universe. The state of the universe ... static or expanding ... is certainly not indicated in most religous doctrines; so how can you hold it to be true that the "religious already knew"?

Difficult to accept something you already mocked as 'religious pseudoscience'!

It is difficult for all of us, as human beings, to admit we are wrong. Doing so requires humility and wisdom. Hoyle, however, is not a spokesperson for the entirety of the atheist community. Atheism makes no statement on whether or not the universe is expanding or in a steady state. I fail to understand how you can make the correlations you are making. I think the term "educated ignorance" fits this well.

I make a distinction between science the method and science the academic opinion- these are often diametrically opposed.

This is utterly laughabl and ignorant; that the layman, armed with the scientific method that they use on a hobbyist level, could hope to compete with the scientists who employ the scientific method each and every day

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Unless you research everything around you constantly, you simply aren't using any conscious method of determining reality 99.9% of the time.

Hmmmm.

Maybe this is different for me; in a sense.

I am borderline neurotic and suffer from depression. During my fits of neurotic depression, I often perceive threats that are not there; I view behavior of others in a delusional state that "they are out to get me". As a result, I am constanly searching for validation tha what I perceive is what is truly happening. Moreover, I am keenly aware of the fallibility of the human mind ... including my own mind ... thus I do have the propensity to question whether or not I am seeing or perceiving is actually valid. Also, I am aware that in the age of the Internet with new imisinformational hoaxes happening around us all the time ... some even capable of fooling seasoned reporters ... necessitiates that I do question claims of others much more vigiantly than so much as 2 decades ago

I submit that I, a an individual, use concious methods of determining reality much more than what you infer.

 

[Erebus]

Hmmmm.

Maybe this is different for me; in a sense.

I am borderline neurotic and suffer from depression. During my fits of neurotic depression, I often perceive threats that are not there; I view behavior of others in a delusional state that "they are out to get me". As a result, I am constanly searching for validation tha what I perceive is what is truly happening. Moreover, I am keenly aware of the fallibility of the human mind ... including my own mind ... thus I do have the propensity to question whether or not I am seeing or perceiving is actually valid. Also, I am aware that in the age of the Internet with new imisinformational hoaxes happening around us all the time ... some even capable of fooling seasoned reporters ... necessitiates that I do question claims of others much more vigiantly than so much as 2 decades ago

I submit that I, a an individual, use concious methods of determining reality much more than what you infer.

Fair enough

Honestly, I doubt you would examine your daily life to the extent that I had in mind. I believe such a thing would be an impossible task.

However, I don't know your mind. For that matter, I don't know that others are as unobservant (that's perhaps a harsh choice of word, but I hope you get what I mean) as I suspect they are. I am however willing to believe that you, as an individual, may well be far more aware of your daily life than Average Joe is.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Then was gravity fiction?

Well. You can always drop a hammer on your toe.

 

[idea]

If you want to know how most people define truth... these are the stages that many people go through.

 

[Acim]

I find it very challenging, philosophically, to establish existence outside of my mind; though usually phrase that as 'the mind' because of spiritual understandings.

As that relates to this thread, I don't see how anyone could plausibly determine, as fact, that there is existence outside of their (individual) mind. I routinely take such assertions (assuming objectivity) as fiction, at first and then decide if it pertains to my interests, beliefs and understandings.

That anyone (not me) may try to determine existence outside of their mind and then share that with me, is where things get convoluted. If I am certain they are not me, then that ought to be evidence in and of itself that there is existence outside of my (individual) mind. But what truly is the evidence that they are "not me?"

In my night dreams, I can (routinely do) have experiences of "not me" engaging in things I am convinced I would never do, or consciously despise. Encountering people that do things to what I perceive as me (within the dream) and hurting me, feeling sensation of pain, remaining cautious of them, wanting to possibly attack them. Thus firmly established within the context that there is individual me with my own thoughts and physical makeup, and there are other beings who are easily identified as "not me." All of their thoughts and actions are (seemingly) not up to me, not connected to my being, even a little bit.

Upon awakening, I have realization (sometimes takes awhile) that all of that experience was actually fictitious. But still challenging to reconcile that I was literally every character within the dream and am responsible (entirely) for 'their' thoughts and 'their' actions. Challenging to understand what level of consciousness put such beings into that context for me. But easy to dismiss it as 'unconsciousness' and move on, hopefully not thinking twice about the sleight of hand in such an assertion. Or that such an assertion could (rather easily) apply to this (so called) waking reality I'm experiencing now as I type this post.

Much about 'the' scientific method strikes me as subjective. The more I contemplate on it (as I have for many years), it routinely comes across as highly subjective doing its darnedest to be pass itself (as if it is independent to my existence) off as objective. It's not like 'the' scientific method has has 'the' scientific method applied to its own existence. Thus a vast assumption that it is a way to determine accurate, truth, fact. Every aspect of the method relies on individual determinations, as in first 'I' observe something, then 'I' form a hypothesis, then 'I' conduct experiments to verify/deny the veracity of the hypothesis, then 'I' analyze the data and present my findings, along with my methodology. Then I let it go - to the stage of seeking feedback, confirmation or refutation. That last stage is where things would appear to be not so subjective. I believe totally assumed to be non-subjective. The rest of it would obviously have tinges if not totality of subjectivity at work, while some may wish to claim there is always objectivity at work in the scientific method. I truly find that laughable. As laughable as calling a man on earth your spiritual father because that's what everyone else (within the sect) does.

Then to learn that this isn't even 'the' method that all scientists are actually using in their scientific practice, is a bit eye opening. I could say other things that make me skeptical about the method as a noble human endeavor, but really am trying to focus on it as a means to gaining a sense of objectivity. Yet, if the method isn't being applied to all things, much less itself (the method), then the invitation to many instances of subjectivity at work is reasonable. And I would go as far as to say factual.

But because I believe/understand my mind is not (entirely) of my making, then I routinely go with intersubjectivity, and call it a day. Knowing all minds are joined, even if perception is clueless (or unconscious) as to how that is occurring.

 

[Acim]

Here is a bit of what historians have to say on the matter;

The myth of the flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages in Europe saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.[1][2]

During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior ofHieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[3]

Was originally just going to quote the part I highlighted in blue, but preferred to provide some context. That highlighted part is treated by me as "fiction." There's no citation on the assertion, but I'm being asked to assume a) the past is real (which is perhaps trivial, but I think rather significant), b) that the writer of this assertion knows what virtually all scholars in an era believed, or maintained and c) what specifically they believe in comparison to what the era I live in believes about same data. Never mind that this bit of information (spherical earth vs. flat earth) has very little influence on my daily affairs. And never mind the assertion that the earth is both observably flat and spherical.

I honestly could do this with all such assertions and at least some of the time I do. Like the preceding sentence "the myth of the flat earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the middle ages in Europe saw the earth as flat, instead of spherical." Only about 6 fictions at work in that assertion. Much of the time, I will simply overlook them, despite my ongoing skepticism of their veracity, because it regularly doesn't really matter to me. Like any story being told, I recognize certain things have to be stated assertively to lay groundwork before whatever is the primary point being conveyed. Sometimes that primary point is so useless, I just take it as basic entertainment that I willingly chose to engage in.

For me the usefulness of information matters more, I think, than determining fact from fiction, seeing that there isn't exactly surefire ways to make such determinations without making vast assumptions which could, if met with argument, lead to "agree to disagree" type assertions (which ultimately reaffirm, for me, that they are vast assumptions).

But I do consider it intellectually engaging and entertaining to discuss fact, fiction, truth, objectivity, so on and so forth. It's like watching a movie that I already know how certain things will turn out, but am appreciating finer nuances on a second or tenth viewing. And sometimes just appreciating hearing the primary point stated again in this manner.