Does fact checking matter to your opinions?

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, ChrisKC said:

Facebook and Twitter are not MY sources of anything requiring truth or scientific significance.

 

Google and YouTube are censored but certainly not everything and not all YouTubers. And I go there often enough to trust a great number of them and I stand by my general comment of fact checking by research as best as can be done to refute obvious "opinions" or to establish a position from which I can form a reasonable judgement.

 

If you need to establish what is correct or not, where do YOU go? Or will you ignore all the sources of what you read and hear and believe what you want to believe?

 

And while I am here; whether matters about most topics are someone's opinion, true, partly true, a lie or anything in between, very little has much impact on my life and I cannot control it, so I take it or leave it and maybe one day some truths may emerge that I and everyone else can agree is the real deal.

 

Not everybody in the world is lying, deliberately misleading or giving misinformation.

 

YOUR sources or not, neither of those sources are acceptable on this board unless they meet specified criteria..

[farmerjo]

Best way is to just stick to commenting on topics we have real life experience with.

Google won't have the small print on that.

But we all do stray in this modern world.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, farmerjo said:

Best way is to just stick to commenting on topics we have real life experience with.

Google won't have the small print on that.

But we all do stray in this modern world.

But comment all you like but it's against the rules to claim a fact without supporting your claim with a credible link.

[ChrisKC]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

YOUR sources or not, neither of those sources are acceptable on this board.

I know, about quoting anything,  but what has that got do with me just saying the word -  or is that not allowed?

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, ChrisKC said:

I know, about quoting anything,  but what has that got do with me just saying the word -  or is that not allowed?

Doesn't it depend on what words you say? The rules are clear and I'm sure you have read and understand them. I don't know why there's debate about this. You do know exactly what a claim of fact is I'm sure.

[OneMoreFarang]

33 minutes ago, ChrisKC said:

And while I am here; whether matters about most topics are someone's opinion, true, partly true, a lie or anything in between, very little has much impact on my life and I cannot control it, so I take it or leave it and maybe one day some truths may emerge that I and everyone else can agree is the real deal.

I agree that is an important point.

We can argue about lots of things and try to find the truth. But often it is very difficult to know the truth, the whole truth.

And often it doesn't make any difference to our daily life. I.e. the war in Ukraine, how much of the truth do we know? Do we know the motivations of all involved? Can we pretend we understand what is going on when there are so many unknowns? And what difference does it make to our lives? 

I think often it is best to admit that we know very little about what is really going on. 

[ChrisKC]

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Doesn't it depend on what words you say? The rules are clear and I'm sure you have read and understand them. I don't know why there's debate about this. You do know exactly what a claim of fact is I'm sure.

Have you read what I said??? I am not debating anything, neither do I need to. I was responding to a point from someone else, that is nothing to do with you. He mentioned that Facebook - oh sorry I said that dirty word again!! He said that it and Twitter were not sources of reliability and by me stating clearly, I didn't use them for that purpose that should be a bit of a clue that I am very unlikely therefore, to contravene the rules of this forum of which I am aware!

 

If you don't understand ask a Moderator to intervene!

 

Resulting from which this does not require any further comment from you.

 

 

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I agree that is an important point.

We can argue about lots of things and try to find the truth. But often it is very difficult to know the truth, the whole truth.

And often it doesn't make any difference to our daily life. I.e. the war in Ukraine, how much of the truth do we know? Do we know the motivations of all involved? Can we pretend we understand what is going on when there are so many unknowns? And what difference does it make to our lives? 

I think often it is best to admit that we know very little about what is really going on. 

The important thing is to exclude what can't be demonstrated as the truth. That's what the rules attempt to do by requiring links to evidence.

[Mark Nothing]

Fact checking matters to my opinion.  I carte blanche reject them.  The opposite is more likely correct.

[BananaStrong]

"fact" checking is itself possible not a "fact"

 

they might "fact" check with a company paying for the research.   everything has a bias.  no bias is a bias.

 

If you believe all the "fact" checkers then you will likely believe everything.    Oh, I saw it in a documentary!!!!  That's probably your favorite saying.

 

Either you have a brain and can deduct reasoning... or you don't.   If you are on social media all day, your brain is likely mush.   If you are too lazy to read books, your mind is likely mush.

 

I just searched for "facts on why we live in a simulation."  lots of facts!!!!!  We must live in a simulation.

 

If this is you, your brain is likely mush.    lol  lol

[ozimoron]

20 minutes ago, BananaStrong said:

"fact" checking is itself possible not a "fact"

 

they might "fact" check with a company paying for the research.   everything has a bias.  no bias is a bias.

 

If you believe all the "fact" checkers then you will likely believe everything.    Oh, I saw it in a documentary!!!!  That's probably your favorite saying.

 

Either you have a brain and can deduct reasoning... or you don't.   If you are on social media all day, your brain is likely mush.   If you are too lazy to read books, your mind is likely mush.

 

I just searched for "facts on why we live in a simulation."  lots of facts!!!!!  We must live in a simulation.

 

If this is you, your brain is likely mush.    lol  lol

And if you believe none of the fact checkers? That seems to be a common refrain around here.

 

I'm amazed how many folks there are around here who are quite willing to dismiss credible sources for suspect sources with no scientific or expert basis. Not pointing the finger at you specifically but in general.

[GammaGlobulin]

The Big Bang Theory, so far, remains intact.

[observer90210]

Often not much to do with if right or wrong, I may say.

 

More of an ego issue, that is deeply embedded in some people, mixed with some form of arrogance.

 

Generally such "fine" people,  end up in ending up alone...!!

[save the frogs]

17 hours ago, Hummin said:

I studied marketing, and the profession is pure manipulating of people to consume more, eat more,

I try to avoid advertising. 

 

Women is an entirely different issue as there is sex and emotions involved. But even then, you need to learn when your woman is being too manipulative to extricate yourself.

[save the frogs]

8 hours ago, ozimoron said:

without supporting your claim with a credible link.

the whole concept of 'credible link' is flawed / outdated / corrupt / useless / and or silly.

in the past, the internet didn't exist.

we ONLY had access to govt-approved sources of information.

 

if I ask you ... what is a credible link about retiring in Pattaya?

Is International Living Magazine credible? 

The answer is yes and no. It depends on which information.

They sometimes have to hide things to keep the money rolling in and not frighten some of their audience away.

So they may omit talking about the seedy side. 

Or they make not recommend the place as a retirement destination to avoid being associated with 'bar girls'. 

 

As they are a "reputable" source, there are certain things they are not allowed to discuss.

So in other words, for many aspects of retiring in Pattaya, a forum like this becomes more of a credible link.

Because people are anonymous and not trying to run a for-profit magazine, they can say what they really experienced living in Pattaya .. the good, the bad, and the ugly. 

Without fear of losing revenue. 

Of course some posters opinions are more reliable than others ..

But the concept of "credible link" is flawed.

 

If you wanted to retire in Pattaya, you would ideally read mainstream magazines for some general info, but you would get a more complete picture by also reading forums. 

 

People are using the internet but don't understand what it is.

Any reasonably intelligent person expressing an opinion is a potential credible link.

As the internet is a tool to empower anyone to get a message across to an audience.

Where that was not possible in the past. 

 

With regards to science, you can watch the film "Thank You For Smoking". They made it clear that the initial research into whether cigarettes cause cancer was funded by the Tobacco companies.

 

Credible links are not always credible.

And sometimes a nobody online can be a credible link.

 

 

[ukrules]

19 hours ago, ozimoron said:

How likely are you to change your opinion on any matter when you see reasonably argued and credible fact checking indicating that your preconception was false?

Proof, I would want to see proof, then I change my mind 100%.

 

18 hours ago, proton said:

who checks the fact checkers?

Nobody, they are unquestionable arbiters of truth. If you question them you are 'cancelled' and labelled as a far right miscreant.

[GammaGlobulin]

9 hours ago, ozimoron said:

The important thing is to exclude what can't be demonstrated as the truth. That's what the rules attempt to do by requiring links to evidence.

Have you two guys ever heard of EPISTEMOLOGY? 

[spidermike007]

I enjoy being discredited and being shown that I am full of hot air. I know I am opinionated, and sometimes wrong. Being right just does not mean that much to me. Show me I am wrong, and I hope I am man enough to accept it. 

[GammaGlobulin]

5 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I enjoy being discredited and being shown that I am full of hot air. I know I am opinionated, and sometimes wrong. Being right just does not mean that much to me. Show me I am wrong, and I hope I am man enough to accept it. 

You are, with little doubt, not full of hot air. 

 

On the other hand, nobody is saying that you are not man enough. 

 

 

[AMcC]

Truthfully, I've yet to  see "...reasonably argued and credible fact checking...".

The "fact checker(s)^TM" always seem to have an agenda.

Thankfully, it is usually a very obvious agenda.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, ukrules said:

If you question them you are 'cancelled' and labelled as a far right miscreant.

Or called woke by the far right. ????

I am not on any far side, this is just an observation. 

[zzaa09]

10 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I agree that is an important point.

We can argue about lots of things and try to find the truth. But often it is very difficult to know the truth, the whole truth.

And often it doesn't make any difference to our daily life. I.e. the war in Ukraine, how much of the truth do we know? Do we know the motivations of all involved? Can we pretend we understand what is going on when there are so many unknowns? And what difference does it make to our lives? 

I think often it is best to admit that we know very little about what is really going on. 

USB177,000,000,000 worth. 

[BananaStrong]

Imagine fact checking in China.    Just imagine.

 

There is one fact.   This will never, ever, ever, ever be debated.

 

Unless you enjoy a jail cell.  

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Show me I am wrong, and I hope I am man enough to accept it. 

Yes, I do the same - or at least I think so.

I think the problem gets bigger all the time when we make up our minds about what is right and what is wrong in early stages. And then we defend our position. And then we defend it more. And more.

Maybe it is already overdue that we accept we were wrong from the very beginning. But as long as we still find an expert who supports what we always supported we stay with our made up mind.

 

An example comes to my mind. Recently we had a story in this forum about a tourist with a motorcycle accident and a big hospital bill. The story had very little details. And then the comments started.

She was obviously drunk. She had no license. She had no insurance. She never rode a bike back home. Lot's of members of this forum who just knew what happened. 

And then when some of us question how these people think they know all this then often they find reasons to support their original opinion. 

Very seldom do we have a comment like: What I said previously was premature. I made some assumptions which I shouldn't have done. 

And yes, I have to admit sometimes I also shouldn't write unfounded speculations.

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

12 minutes ago, BananaStrong said:

Imagine fact checking in China.    Just imagine.

 

There is one fact.   This will never, ever, ever, ever be debated.

 

Unless you enjoy a jail cell.  

They have fact checking all the time.

The government checks and reeducates people when they were wrong. ???? 

[Hummin]

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

They have fact checking all the time.

The government checks and reeducates people when they were wrong. ???? 

It is an Asian thing, as far I know, they do it to demostrants here in Thailand to. 

[NoshowJones]

12 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I agree that is an important point.

We can argue about lots of things and try to find the truth. But often it is very difficult to know the truth, the whole truth.

And often it doesn't make any difference to our daily life. I.e. the war in Ukraine, how much of the truth do we know? Do we know the motivations of all involved? Can we pretend we understand what is going on when there are so many unknowns? And what difference does it make to our lives? 

I think often it is best to admit that we know very little about what is really going on. 

Good post, but there can never be an excuse for any country marching into another country against the will of the people of that country and just taking it over.

No one should ever be able to rule over any country against the will of that country's population.

Thailands present unelected PM immediately springs to mind.

[sandyf]

23 hours ago, ozimoron said:

How likely are you to change your opinion on any matter when you see reasonably argued and credible fact checking indicating that your preconception was false?

A bit of an open ended question. The majority of opinionated dicussion comes about from contentious fact, when fact is established, debate is short lived.

The issue of face masks is a prime example.

[OneMoreFarang]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

A bit of an open ended question. The majority of opinionated dicussion comes about from contentious fact, when fact is established, debate is short lived.

The issue of face masks is a prime example.

How about the issue of election results in the country of the free? It seems about 70 million people still "think" they won - without any evidence on their side.

[VocalNeal]

3 hours ago, NoshowJones said:

Good post, but there can never be an excuse for any country marching into another country against the will of the people of that country and just taking it over.

No one should ever be able to rule over any country against the will of that country's population.

Thailands present unelected PM immediately springs to mind.

Mugabe was elected as was Ayatollah Khomeini. No opinion, just saying.