• phorq@lemmy.mlEspañol
    271·
    2 months ago

    [Coment attempting to have an intelligent and witty take on the conflict dispite two typos from either lazyness or stupidity]

  • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.worldEnglish
    193·
    2 months ago

    Anecdote isn’t worthless, it just takes a lot of it to become credible.

    Like, think of an anecdote like a single study - doesn’t carry much weight, but may indicate that further investigation is called for. A shit ton of anecdotes all making a similar claim - now we’ve got peer review that may actually add up to something significant. It also may not, but the more it builds momentum without being debunked, the more likely it is to be actually getting at something real.

    • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
      3·
      2 months ago

      On the other hand, when someone claims something is impossible/something has never happened before/something happens every single time, but you have just 1 anecdote from a credible source that contradicts that claim, then that 1 anecdote is enough to know that they are wrong.

      Example: some pundit states: our government has never executed an innocent man. You just need proof that they have executed a single innocent man to show that the pundit has no credibility on the subject and that it’s thus not an impossibility that other executed men were also innocent.

      • CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de
        11·
        2 months ago

        Not unless someone methodologically captures all the accounts through interviews and surveys and turns it into one.

    • CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de
      11·
      2 months ago

      I agree that anecdotes aren’t worthless, but for different reasons. There’s actually a saying that goes, “the plural of anecdote isn’t data.” Anecdotes are just stories. They aren’t data points and they aren’t peer reviewed. If you want to turn anecdotes into data, you have to do the proper interviews and surveys to actually build a dataset and then get the peer review, but at that point we aren’t talking about anecdotes anymore.

  • hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl
    121·
    2 months ago

    A fact is not enough - your audience will form an opinion based on it. That prevents objectivity.

    You need to select your facts (pro and contra a point of view). And in the process you express your opinion which is based on the mentioned facts. It’s very hard to be objective and quite easy to do framing.

  • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
    67·
    2 months ago

    Your daily lemmy experience. Better make sure the only facts you quote are “oild rigs are weather machines”, “twitter is now worth 25% of what musk paid for it”.

    Don’t you dare quoting facts like “Trump has only half of the popular vote”. You’ll be chased and, maybe, banned.

    • Chip_Rat@lemmy.world
      3·
      2 months ago

      I haven’t heard anything but mockery about the “Democrats control the weather” thing. Are there Lemmy communities that have actual idiots spouting this? Other than the few famous trolls who are basically doing a bit at this point?

    • multifariace@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 months ago

      I wish this was only on Lemmy. I live this life. I am surrounded by this daily! I am scared in my own country.

  • Juice@midwest.social
    36·
    2 months ago

    What’s epistemology? What is object/subject dualism? What is Gödel’s incompleteness theorem? Idk, I just know other people are stupid

    Some of y’all have a piss poor education in humanities and it shows

    • WldFyre@lemm.ee
      3·
      2 months ago

      Is the incompleteness theorem humanities? I thought it was comsci?

      Edit: Oh God I’m dumb it’s not comsci idk why I said that lol, but it is still mathematics.

      • Juice@midwest.social
        11·
        2 months ago

        Yeah I thought that too, but it has strong epistemic/ontological implications. Kind of a mix imo

  • JackGreenEarth@lemm.eeEnglish
    716·
    2 months ago

    How do you know it’s objective fact and not just your subjective opinion? Can any opinion about the world you perceive through your senses be objective, if your senses are themselves subjective?

    • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
      163·
      2 months ago

      Sounds like an argument to make yourself feel superior to all groups without adding anything concrete to the conversation to me.

      You seem to confuse subjectivity of perception with the objectivity of external facts. While our senses interpret the world, objective facts remain true independent of individual perception. For example, gravity exists whether or not one perceives or “believes” in it.

        • djsoren19@yiffit.net
          8·
          2 months ago

          Incorrect. Gravity is a measurable force. If you never did any experiments to derive the falling speed of an object due to Earth’s gravitational pull, then I feel sorry for your poor education, but you’re more than welcome to rigorously prove that our planet’s gravitational constant is 9.8m/s^2.

          Unless your argument is that objectivity cannot exist because everything you experience is through a subjective lens, at which point I’d remind you that solipsism is kinda the dead-end of philosophical discussion.

          • JackGreenEarth@lemm.eeEnglish
            213·
            2 months ago

            Your second paragraph was exactly my point. Nothing you know empirically is objective knowledge.

            • prototype_g2@lemmy.ml
              10·
              2 months ago

              It’s the problem of knowledge all over again. Something which philosophers have been debating for centuries. But I highly doubt you have studied any of it.

              That whole thing of “facts are just opinions” is nothing more than the devaluing of empirical evidence and turning observable facts into a matter of opinion, turning any and all political discussion into a shouting match where nothing ever comes of it because “it’s just my opinion”. This propaganda tactic is called “The Fire hose of Falsehood”.

              I could go on and on about the nature of knowledge and the evolution of science, but I highly doubt you would care as you do not seem to know even the most basic things about The Problem of Knowledge and choose to go the self-contradictory skeptic route of “Knowledge doesn’t exist”.

              Edit: I would just like to add that just because our sense are 100% reliable that doesn’t mean that everything is false.

              • JackGreenEarth@lemm.eeEnglish
                18·
                2 months ago

                I can know for sure that a thinking being I call ‘me’ exists. I act in my empirical life based off of my empirical knowledge, but I don’t think that it’s necessarily true, just a useful way to govern behaviour in a world I have just as much grounds for believing is true.

                It is technically just an opinion that the empirical world exists, but when making decisions about the empirical world it makes most sense to me to treat the working knowledge the scientific method has given us as true, even though it technically isn’t.

                • prototype_g2@lemmy.ml
                  41·
                  2 months ago

                  Philosophy is fine and all but we can’t forget that from a practical standpoint, all this philosophizing is useless. We can’t live our day to day lives operating under the belief that the material world doesn’t exist and using The Problem Of Knowledge as a way to dismiss empirical evidence by stating that we can’t be sure if the material world even exist is impractical and useless. Remember: Philosophy is completely useless. The only value you will find in it is the development of critical thinking skills.

                  Just imagine if a murdered caught red handed could get away scoot free by just saying “Hey, you can prove the material world exist, therefore you can prove the victim ever existed!”

    • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 months ago

      I haven’t read much on the topic, so forgive me for my ramble:

      I agree with this sentiment. And find myself particularly cringing to people I agree with, espousing something as a FACT, as a part of their argument.

      To me, science (my personal philosophy) is the best way we have to determine what is likely to be true, and the best way we have to describe the world in which we live.

      When people start saying things like “and that’s a FACT” like it somehow makes their position more credible, annoys me greatly.

      Getting ahead of the semantics, I don’t have an issue with the word itself, as being “something true”. Just that when people use it as something being self-evident. And I see it happening a lot, even with people saying something I agree with.