• Krudler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    No real answer but in a general sense I try to know that most things are a matter of perspective and truth is on a probability curve

  • shneancy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 month ago

    is it a fun fact that impacts nothing? i’ll accept it as fact immediately and without question

    is it a fact that has some weight to it? i’ll probably double check and if i find a reliable source that also claims it to be fact i’ll accept it (if i’m reading about it from a reliable source i will accept it immediately)

    is it a fact that contradicts my current beliefs/understanding of the world? i’ll do some research on it, check if there’s any recent articles like “that thing you thought was right? is not!”, and depending on the nature of the fact think about why it’s been debunked and how that changed my perception on the world

  • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    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

  • Cattail@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    ill tell you this, the amount of data would require for anyone accept a statement or idea as fact is related to their emotional assessment of the idea. See it all the time with trump supporters that think that trump is actually fighting to cut tax on overtime pay simple because he said it on the trail and there no evidence (and they have no evidence) that is happening, on the other hand it would take an infinite amount of evidence that trump took bribes even as he openly appointed Elon after spending millions of dollars.

    so its weird that you have to propagandize the facts just to get people anywhere near a reasonable level of skeptism.

    but for me I just say anything is valid unless I know how its wrong, which is limbo of acceptance then afterwards it can become a scoreboard where for and against. maybe a source doesn’t 100% line up with a statement, hell even video/audio evidence can be incongruent with a statement (as in its similar to what’s said but doesn’t back up a statement). I think the claim that Floyd overdosed but the video doesn’t show a overdose from opioids, so you’d have to rule out overdose simple because video doesn’t match the description of an overdose.

    it wouldn’t take much, generally new information has to be consistent with what I know. the hard part is understanding the new information. no one is randomly disprove gravity or that things have mass, but someone can prove to me how a myth is meant to be interpreted for the intended audience

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    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”.

  • LordCrom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    That’s the great thing about science.

    Things that are considered facts in today’s world can be disproven by new experiments and observations (recreated through experimentation and after adequate peer review).

    So for me, it depends on what is being evaluated. 2+2 is a fact. Exact age of the moon might be up for more debate.

    • Arkouda@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      How is 2 + 2 a fact?

      How do you know, through new experiments and observations, that we will never determine the exact age of the moon?

      • qantravon@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        You have 2 apples. I give you 2 more. How many apples do you have? Unless you redefine what the numbers or the operators mean, then you now have 4 apples. That’s a truth that is evident in the world and can be verified. That’s what a fact is.

        He didn’t suggest we could never determine the age of the moon. He said that science refines it’s methods and gathers new information, and so we may change our estimate of its age based on new evidence.

        • Arkouda@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Maybe the person who isn’t you that I asked can weight in because I didn’t ask you about your comments context.

    • untakenusername@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      2+2 is a fact

      In some sense, if every single human thought that 2+2 equaled 5, it would become true

      (I’m not smart enough to come up with this lol, got it from Orwell’s 1984)

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        It doesn’t even require belief.

        2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2.

        While a facetious statement in general, it is factual if those values derive from rounding. Significant Digits must be maintained.

      • qantravon@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Only if you completely redefine some aspect of the equation. You’d have to define “5” to actually mean “4” or change the meaning of “+” or “=” in some way that changes the operation. 2+2=4 isn’t just an abstract statement, it’s based on the way the physical world works. If you have 2 apples, and then I give you 2 more, you don’t suddenly have 5 apples because we all decided 2+2=5.

        Orwell’s meaning in 1984 wasn’t about belief changing the world, it was about the power of brainwashing and how fascism demands obedience.

        • exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          If you have 2 apples, and then I give you 2 more, you don’t suddenly have 5 apples because we all decided 2+2=5.

          No, but some types of addition follow their own rules.

          Sometimes 1+1 is 2. One Apple plus one Apple is two apples.

          Sometimes 1+1 is 1. Two true statements joined together in conjunction are true.

          Sometimes 1+1 is 0. Two 180° rotations is the same as if you didn’t rotate the thing at all.

          If you don’t define what kind of addition you’re talking about, then it’s not precise enough to talk through what is or isn’t true.

  • Applesauce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Basically, if it’s in the Bible, it’s fact. Everything else is entirely made up by the devil.

      • MidsizedSedan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Like, i found this youtube channel from the video “mom founf the yaoi”. And now its latest video is about the rapture? Its just morse code, this description, and 2 links in the comments.

        As soon as i get home, im yt-dlp this channel to preserve this.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I have no earthly idea what you’re talking about (replied in the wrong place, maybe?), but that is some prime internet weirdness.

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              The bit where she’s distracted by her skinny arm right after saying she can’t distract herself makes me pretty sure it’s parody. It’s very well done, though.

    • Arkouda@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I would argue that quantity is just as important as quality and logical reasoning. The Triforce of Science, if you will.

  • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    It honestly depends more on the source to me. I’d like to claim to rely on data but life is short and there is no way I can verify even a fraction of all the truths I have come to accept.

  • naught101@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Depends how interesting or important or complex the thing is. If you tell me that your foot is 25cm long, I’ll believe you without question. If you tell me it’s 52cm, then you’re going to have a hard time convincing me (unless you’ve already convinced me that you’re a talking kangaroo).

    This is why it’s much more important to be skeptical of people’s views on political issues too, because the situations are always complex, and important to different people in different ways.

  • the_grass_trainer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.