Mark Zuckerberg: Identifying The "Truth" Is Complicated

Truth is truth. When you just find it out then it is news. After a small amount of time it is no longer news it just truth again.
 
westrock2000 said:
Nope, can you give a scientific truth about why it's right or wrong without using compassion or ideology (human constructs)?

Science doesn't care if you kill something.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but you're the one suggesting that "murder is wrong" is an idea rather than a truth. It's your job to defend that, not mine, so you're going to have to explain when murder is not wrong.
 
This entire election, and culture battle of the last (shit...) 15 years has been what criteria exactly constitutes a "fact." As soon as we as a population started allowing there to be a difference between "liberal facts" and "real facts" in Western media, that was the beginning of our downfall as a society. When we stopped being people that could come to a consensus and mutual agreement of what actions to take based on tangible evidence, it allowed people to stroke their ego of being "right" without being open to criticism based on proof.

Basically, a subset of the population began to use the same mechanism that people used to practice their faith to interact with every facet of physical existence. There is no accepted Socialism in the U.S.? Supply-side economics doesn't work? Anthropogenic climate change? Doesn't matter what evidence you provide, I don't "believe" in it. Personal belief (regardless of religion) has overridden any collection of evidence or data for a large swath of not just the West, but the population of the planet as a whole. It's a minority, but it's a large minority.

Facts are inherently the opposite of faith: Belief, only in the presence of evidence. Facebook and the proliferation of partisan sites allow people to reinforce their cognitive bias by actively seeking out what reinforces their preconceived "belief", rather than seeking legitimate sources that can prove them wrong. The problem is, Facebook dances on this "news source but not a media company but sometimes we are" line when it suits their needs, but simultaneously disregards the fact it serves a Billion users across the planet.

To think about it another way, approximately 12,000 full-time employees affect the daily news feed of at least 1/7th of the planet's population. The U.S. election is/was important as our actions exert pressure in an enormous sphere of influence, but there's other geopolitical nuances they seem to disregard in a very cavalier manner (to say nothing of their other social "experiments" they've ran).
 
WangChung said:
This entire election, and culture battle of the last (shit...) 15 years has been what criteria exactly constitutes a "fact." As soon as we as a population started allowing there to be a difference between "conservative facts" and "real facts" in Western media, that was the beginning of our downfall as a society...
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you. I think one argument to be made is who is vetting these "Truths". I for one don't trust FOX or MSNBC or any of the rest of the media with a biased agenda, authors, editors or owners.
 
Dwango said:
This is why I said "most of the time". For example, there are still people out there that will tell you that the science is still out on climate change despite the fact that the vast, vast majority of climate scientists will tell you that it is being caused by human activity. That is a fact. It is not in doubt. The science on it is not still "out". Not believing it doesn't change that. And yet you'll find all over the alt-right "news" pages that no one is sure or that it is totally a natural phenomenon.
Click to expand...
Actually it is not a fact. Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) suggests that the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate however the work of Jan Esper (Esper et al 2006, 2012, 2015)suggests otherwise:
Esper-et-al-2012.jpg


Esper uses a more advanced technique for measuring the tree rings than Michael Mann and his statistical methodology has not undergone the criticism of statisticians as has Mann's research. One can plainly see that there have been several periods as warm or warmer than recent years, most notably the Roman warm period and the Medieval war period, both of which were per-industrial.

Most warming alarmists are "not" familiar with the science and most do not know what they are talking about.
 
westrock2000 said:
Sorry, it was meant to be a play on a phrase that became popular this year in the media that was "there is no there there".

It was not directed at you personally.
Click to expand...
Thank you for explaining. I totally missed it. (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top