quote Originally posted by williegoat: Just as with toast, bing, sourmash and a few others, anyone who has a different opinion than ND is willfully ignorant or not thinking critically (i.e. not intelligent). This is simply a more polite way of calling conservatives "rubes" or "RWNJ". Years ago, Rush coined the term "seminar callers". This is the forum equivalent.

I have never said anyone here is "willfully ignorant"; I have described a behavior as willfully ignorant, and described why I did so.
Not thinking critically is not the same as being unintelligent. The two are not related.
I have told multiple forum members when and where I respect their stances and opinions. I've done so in this thread. I would not do that if I thought they were rubes.

I get that you don't like my politics, Willie, but that does not give you carte blanch to misquote me and misrepresent what I've said to other forum members. It's also absolutely wild to insinuate that I'm a secret astroturfed Democrat Party agent sent here to clandestinely undermine the political forces of Pennock's Fiero Forum and all 10 people who frequent the P&R section.

Look, I apologize if your feelings are still hurt that I said you were not thinking critically about perceived attempts to "steal" the 2024 election. I understand better now some of the sensitivities on the forum and will do my best to accommodate them in my responses.

It today's misinformation atmosphere from most of the press, where do you find resources that you determine as facts?

Honest question.

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: It today's misinformation atmosphere from most of the press, where do you find resources that you determine as facts? Honest question.

The short answer is: I don't! (or at least I try really hard not to, even if I fail at it sometimes)

I accept every bit of media is feeding a version of events, and while they contain some fact they also contain a lot if biased information. I think both authority and reputation are important factors there; there's a reason NEJM articles are treated differently than livestrong.com articles. That doesn't mean "NEJM is pure fact! Trust it!", but it does mean that the information coming from it has quality control / an attempt at objectivity. Cross-reference-ability is important for the same reason; trends in data make them much more likely to be 'true,' especially if they are among authoritative sources.

Information Science is kind of obsessed with this question, btw, which leads to all kinds of resources on it:
https://ohiostate.pressbook...nking-about-sources/
https://www.una.edu/writing...ce%20Credibility.pdf
https://pressbooks.library....ng-research-sources/
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/...eral_guidelines.html

[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 10-09-2024).]

quote Originally posted by NewDustin: You have confused "fact" and "opinion" here. What defines a "fact" is it's objectivity outside of individual perception; facts are not changed or determined by an individuals perceptions or opinions of them. What is factual for one person is factual for all people. If that's not the case, you are not dealing with facts, you are dealing with subjective opinions. People are absolutely entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to insist their opinions are "facts," or to redefine factual information so it is indistinguishable from opinion.

Heh.

What defines a fact is the objectivity of individual perception. To the individual.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Heh. What defines a fact is the objectivity of individual perception. To the individual.

Now you're doing it with the word objective, which literally means:
"of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind"

You have, instead, given it exact opposite definition, that of the word "subjective", which literally means:
"characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind"

You can't just decide the word "objective" means the same thing as "subjective" and that therefore opinions = facts. There are not "alternate facts" based on an individuals perceptions; those are subjective by their very nature and are "opinions" because of it.

quote Originally posted by NewDustin: Now you're doing it with the word objective, which literally means: "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind" You have, instead, given it exact opposite definition, that of the word "subjective", which literally means: "characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind" You can't just decide the word "objective" means the same thing as "subjective" and that therefore opinions = facts. There are not "alternate facts" based on an individuals perceptions; those are subjective by their very nature and are "opinions" because of it.

Thanks for the lesson. Education, to me, is like more money in my pocket, more tools in my tool box.

However, perhaps you missed my point. I was attempting to explain that an individual's objectivity is not always objective.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 10-11-2024).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: However, perhaps you missed my point. I was attempting to explain that an individual's objectivity is not always objective.

I did miss it