This is a woman who repeats these things to herself at night to attempt to justify her existence to herself desperately. “It’s ok that he lies, because there’s no facts. Truth doesn’t exist because facts are what we make of them. There’s no facts… no facts…”
10 Likes
adam-curtis hypernormalisation
7 Likes
Victory Gin after Labor Day? Mimsy would need the fainting couch!
1 Like
7 Likes
Yeah, I agree with some of the sentiment in her statement - facts are constructs which describe reality, and such descriptions involve analysis from a particular viewpoint, which results in a particular interpretation (even more-so when involving politics and anything ideological). But, it’s irritating here because 1. the Right has always accused the Left of being relativists which ignore absolute truth (when its now apparently on the opposite side), and 2. the Right is now embracing this position because they have a crazy leader who completely disregards established facts (I guess that could have applied to Reagan as well). Either both sides get to acknowledge the ambiguous status of “facts,” or neither side can. But, the Right wants it their way only, and is just using it for their advantage while denouncing the same methodology on the Left, making them deceitful hypocrites.
3 Likes
All it takes to create a fact is to make an assertion. “My computer is really a fern.” It’s a statement of fact which happens to be completely inaccurate. So it seems that many employ an iterative process to first establish the truth (accuracy) of their facts, and then use those tested facts to devise an actionable model (truth).
I prefer to seek accuracy in my dealings with others, and decide upon the philosophy of truth on my own. Find the best latest evidence, and avoid ever believing anything.
1 Like
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels
14 Likes
The Right’s relationship with facts has gotten very weird and strange and troubling. Sure, there’s gray-area “facts” people can squabble over, which are more opinions than anything, but then there’s absolute truths, hard data that are capital-F facts. But you can post them in tweets, broadcast them on the news, or print them in the paper, and folks on the Right will still deny they exist due to their complete distrust of the media and government sources for facts.
“Look, here’s hard data compiled over 30 years by thousands of scientists all over the world showing without any doubt that we’re experiencing cataclysmic worldwide man-made climate change.”
“CUCK LIES.”
15 Likes
#No.
Google definition: “Fact: noun. 1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.”
Dictionary.com definition: “Fact: noun. 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth”
Cambridge English Dictionary definition: “Fact: noun. something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information”
“Fact” doesn’t mean “statement”, or “assertion”, or “claim”, or “allegation”, or “utterance”. If it’s not provably true, then it’s not a fact, according to the accepted usage of the word.
Well, in that case, in the interests of achieving accuracy in your dealings with others, I recommend that you not try to win arguments by sneakily redefining words. People might get the wrong idea and accuse you of intellectual dishonesty.
18 Likes
I remember someone stating that there are no such things as facts in science, but this isn’t science. The “there’s no such thing as facts” being stated does require one to read the full thing to get the required facepalming, otherwise the quote itself seems reasonable in philosophical terms.
Also, “people believe they have facts to back that up”, no, facts are to be accepted, not believed. This is becoming a swell case of if you believe in fairies, clap your hands, except with BS Voting Fraud claims.
1 Like
My little sister aged eight: ‘It depends what has been done to the glass. Has half the water been removed? Half empty. Has it been part-filled? Half-full.’
She was a fucking Zen Master as a kid was our Gracie.
30 Likes
Steam?
1 Like
Thirsty person: You going to drink that?
7 Likes
Those examples are rife with weaseling.
a thing that is known or proved to be true
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information
There is an unexamined level of subjectivity here. Known by whom? Do all people know the same things?
something that actually exists; reality; truth
That’s a huge epistemological leap. Are objective reality and human knowledge really equivalent concepts? If I have “proven” a fact to the satisfaction of one person or group, is this transferable to others? Or do they each have their criteria for what constitutes proof or consensus?
Another definition of fact which you omitted I think is even closer to what can be seen used amongst conservatives:
Law A conclusion drawn by a judge or jury from the evidence in a case: a finding of fact.
Which I think demonstrates the extent to which legalistic culture has been detourned for hegemonic purposes. That fact can be determined by an authority, a judge, based upon their interpretation of evidence - or indeed circumstance. This is both less rigorous than physical science and less nebulous than abstract philosophy.
Sounds like a personal problem! If I was interested in discussing accuracy I would be talking about science now instead of political philosophy, which is deceptive by design.
3 Likes
Indeed. In science people are not so lazy as to accept apparent facts as conclusive - but they evaluate them based upon evidence. If people don’t audit pre-digested conclusions for evidence they don’t really know anything of substance, they become tools for somebody’s agenda.
4 Likes
Ah, gotcha. You’re not interested in accuracy (despite your prior claim that that’s what you were all about), but rather are engaging in deception.
Since that’s the case, any further conversation with you would be a waste of my time. I won’t trouble you any further; have a good day.
7 Likes
I did not say that I am not interested in accuracy in itself. What I was getting at is that people here are conflating two distinct domains of concepts. The philosophy of physical science has a goal of understanding the objective universe. Political philosophy has a goal of controlling groups of people to favor certain ideologies. Most people here seem to expect that similar terms are going to have the same meanings across disciplines, for no clear reason other than it would be convenient. Politics and science aren’t going to gel into a cohesive whole regardless of what you say to or about me. Their methods and goals are antithetical to each other. Why blame me? I didn’t do it!
3 Likes
4 Likes
That’s the same thing that Ms Hughes is alleging: that facts don’t exist, only lies.
A lie is not a fact. It’s actually the opposite of it. Asserting something that is provably false is absolutely not a statement of fact.
13 Likes
I think this is generally not shaping up to be a productive conversation. People are simply lumping in all terms to do with communicating and verifying knowledge as if there were no distinctions between them. The opposite of lie is honesty. The opposite of true is false. They are not automatically equivalent. People can and do make honest assertions which are based upon the objectively inaccurate, as well as tell deliberate deceptions using information which is objectively accurate.
Truth, facts, honesty, evidence, proof, knowledge, reality, etc are all distinct concepts which are obviously somewhat related, but have varying connotations and aren’t readily interchangeable. I hope that doesn’t frustrate people too much, but that was all I was trying to point out. Factual information is not the same thing as making an assertion of fact, because there might be evidence which renders the assertion counter-factual. I doubt if many here would disagree about that. But hey, maybe nitpicking about words serves no purpose when trying to audit political intentions. /s
It seems to me that there is a strong emotional undercurrent to this topic supposedly about evidence and accountability so I am going to bail.
2 Likes
