There is no reason to discuss "facts"

[Landon Caeli]

Is that why you post complete nonsense? To watch people's reaction to it?

LOL...

No, realistically maybe I've given you too much credit, especially after you posted a "suggestion" by AI, as opposed to a "fact".

...You do comprehend the difference, right? Between facts and suggestions? Again, we all know all the facts - You haven't proven otherwise, and you can't.

The reliability of suggestions on the other hand is an entirely different topic. we're not discussing all the different facets of AI here, this is about people always demanding that we discuss facts only, as if that's useful. It's not when the facts are already known to all.

You get it? Times have changed.

 

[Nithavela]

LOL...

No, realistically maybe I've given you too much credit, especially after you posted a "suggestion" by AI, as opposed to a "fact".

...You do comprehend the difference, right? Between facts and suggestions? Again, we all know all the facts - You haven't proven otherwise, and you can't.

The reliability of suggestions on the other hand...? That's an entirely different topic. We're not talking about all the facets of AI here, this is about people always demanding that we discuss facts only, as if that's useful. It's not when the facts are already known to all.

You get it? Times have changed.

All I'm getting from you is aggressively ignorant posts like saying that you can ask google AI any question and get accurate, reliable facts.

 

[Landon Caeli]

All I'm getting from you is aggressively ignorant posts like saying that you can ask google AI any question and get accurate, reliable facts.

Look, you're missing the point of this thread, which is proven by your posting useless posts, and kind of wasting peoples time. I understand you want to try and undermine me, that's a healthy exercise in itself I suppose, but this isn't the place. Instead you should be learning now.

 

[Nithavela]

Look, you're missing the point of this thread, which is proven by your posting useless posts, and kind of wasting peoples time. I understand you want to try and undermine me, that's a healthy exercise in itself I suppose, but this isn't the place. Instead you should be learning now.

The "point of this thread" is built on a faulty premise ("Everyone knows all the facts") and thus can be safely ignored.

 

[Landon Caeli]

The "point of this thread" is built on a faulty premise ("Everyone knows all the facts") and thus can be safely ignored.

And you think you've shot holes in that argument because you've been able to find a flaw or two, even when the overwhelming majority of fact-finding is easily discovered.

What if fact finding on the internet was 98.9 percent accurate? And as simple as spending 5 seconds to uncover it? Do you still think your point matters in the grand scheme of things? It doesn't, but nice try.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And you think you've shot holes in that argument because you've been able to find a flaw or two

Yes, flaws are literally holes in your logical argument.

 

[Richard T]

No. It is not factual.

Do Haitian immigrants eat people's pets in Springfield? It is in fact impossible to determine. First there is no exact time frame. Secondly, unless you have knowledge of all meals of Haitians for the time period you would not have the facts. It is inaccurate to say too that Haitians eat pets unless one can cite specific examples. This is fortunate because the right to privacy is far more important than what people are eating for every meal. It is too bad the media jumps to conclusions. We often see headlines about cause and effect with no scientific evidence. Often too we see polls that are accurate but only within a certain range, a certain time, and generally accurate only 95 or 99% of the time.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Yes, flaws are literally holes in your logical argument.

 

[Palmfever]

I don't want to hear about the importance of discussing "facts" anymore. Why? Because everyone knows all the known facts already, and so there's no reason to further discuss them. Don't believe me? Then why can I answer any question anyone has with a factual answer, assuming the answer has been discovered. Go ahead and try me.

What we need to hear is the opinions, testimonies, and feelings that people have on issues... That's what maybe we *don't* know... And need to hear. So we can discover new facts in the future, that haven't been discovered yet.

I don't think it is 'factual' evidence people debate.
It is perspective, omissions and deceptive narrative that twist them up.
And, whose 'facts?'
The tabbaco industry was just one example of scientists on both sides presenting their version of 'facts.'
Aside from that, I would agree.
If we all believed the 'indisputable facts,' there would be little debate.
The only solid truth I believe is Christ and Gods reason for creating us.

 

[Palmfever]

And you think you've shot holes in that argument because you've been able to find a flaw or two, even when the overwhelming majority of fact-finding is easily discovered.

What if fact finding on the internet was 98.9 percent accurate? And as simple as spending 5 seconds to uncover it? Do you still think your point matters in the grand scheme of things? It doesn't, but nice try.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/28/680759871/how-much-of-the-internet-is-fake-a-lot

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/how-much-of-the-internet-is-fake.html

Council Post: 10 Things To Know About The State Of Misinformation

More third-party fact-checking sites and increased awareness on what fake news is will go a long way to improving transparency and accountability and getting rid of fake news once and for all.

www.forbes.com

 

[Landon Caeli]

We often see headlines about cause and effect with no scientific evidence. Often too we see polls that are accurate but only within a certain range, a certain time, and generally accurate only 95 or 99% of the time.

So, in your opinion, is it important to discuss only the facts, and nothing but the facts, when having discussions?

...Because I promise you, there are people here who attest to that, and actually abide by it. Others support the concept, but fall short.

What would you say to people like that?

 

[Landon Caeli]

...Because if I'm in a position to where the Atheists and the Christians are all in favor of fact-based conversation, exclusively - one for scientific-facts, and the other, Truth-facts... Well then, that puts me in a very isolated position here on CF.

Perhaps I'm different than everyone.

 

[zippy2006]

So, in your opinion, is it important to discuss only the facts, and nothing but the facts, when having discussions?

...Because I promise you, there are people here who attest to that, and actually abide by it.

I don't think you will find a single person who thinks only uncontroversial "facts" should be discussed. Maybe you need to try to highlight someone who you think does this.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I don't think you will find a single person who thinks only uncontroversial "facts" should be discussed. Maybe you need to try to highlight someone who you think does this.

That would likely be in violation of the site wide rules:

• "Calling out" a member is an unsolicited comment about another member in reference to something they may have said, their personal beliefs, their signature, or their avatar (challenging the member in a negative manner). This applies to any thread, whether the called out member is participating in that thread or not. Do not quote, or make comments about another member, in your signature or user title.

 

[zippy2006]

That would likely be in violation of the site wide rules

It is not "calling out in a negative manner" if their behavior is not unacceptable or reproachful.

If there is no one who is doing what you are complaining about--either on CF or in the wider world--then the thread is otiose.

 

[Landon Caeli]

It is not "calling out in a negative manner" if their behavior is not unacceptable or reproachful.

If there is no one who is doing what you are complaining about--either on CF or in the wider world--then the thread is otiose.

If they report it, it will be up to a staff panel to decide, and a decision could go either way. I have served here as a staff moderator. I know how it works.

I don't recall having issued you any warnings in the past, if I have, I apologize.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If they report it, it will be up to a staff panel to decide, and a decision could go either way.

Not to call you out, haha, but I know you replied to me in particular in the Israel/Hamas thread about how your gut feelings are even better than my knowledge, and alluded to some of the ideas that went into your OP here.

You are hereby granted legal and moral immunity to quote me from any thread anywhere and anywhen, if it would help you answer zippy's question (and you want to). To the extent that I, a mere user, can indemnify you from all forum consequence, I do so.

 

[stevevw]

I don't want to hear about the importance of discussing "facts" anymore. Why? Because everyone knows all the known facts already, and so there's no reason to further discuss them. Don't believe me? Then why can I answer any question anyone has with a factual answer, assuming the answer has been discovered. Go ahead and try me.

What we need to hear is the opinions, testimonies, and feelings that people have on issues... That's what maybe we *don't* know... And need to hear. So we can discover new facts in the future, that haven't been discovered yet.

Facts. What about consciousness. Is consciousness an epiphenomena of the physical brain. Is this a scientific and objective fact.

I agree we need to consider a different kind of fact or reality may be a better term. Not how we quantify reality but how we embody it. How we experience it and the stories we share about this. I think this is how we once shared knowledge and it contained truths about how we experienced reality.

Today it seems the subject has been devalued in place of the object. We tend to be skeptical and dismissive of peoples experiences. Yet in a strange way at the same time people call for hearing the voices of minorities and believing what people are feeling about themselves and reality.

I think thats because both subjective experience and objective reality are real and work together. So the materialist worldview that only material reality is real is at one end of the extreme. While making experiences and feelings everything even over ruling objective reality is the other extreme.

But somewhere in the middle is the truth. But what happens is each side cannot even make sense of the opposing view as it comes from a completely different paradigm. So even trying to explain how subjective experiences can reveal aspects of reality has been rejected before we start.

The postmodernist who claim there is no truth or objective reality will make rationalisations about why western science is just one form of knowing reality and that there are many alternative perspectives. But at the same time completely rejecting objective reality itself.

I think the key is unstanding subjective experiences more. Listen to whats not being said. Listen to the stories we have told ourselves throughout history. Understand who we are in this world and not just a quantified measure. That seems to be the new frontier more and more people including scientists and philosophers are heading towards and be the most fruitful.

 

[RileyG]

Does this make sense?

Yes.

 

[Richard T]

So, in your opinion, is it important to discuss only the facts, and nothing but the facts, when having discussions?

...Because I promise you, there are people here who attest to that, and actually abide by it. Others support the concept, but fall short.

What would you say to people like that?

I think it can be beneficial to speculate but to say that something is proven, or is a fact should be omitted when it really is just a probability or tendency. In the Haitian eating pets case, no one even bothered to look at the overall tendency. I never saw the numbers of cats and dogs eaten in Haiti, or comparisons with other U.S. cities in regards to whether Haitians do in fact eat pets. Having that information would be relevant if one is trying to make the case in Springfield. It still would not prove or disprove whether they any actually ate cats or dogs in Springfield, but it would be a far more educated guess.