Honesty in Factuality

[The Matte-Black Cat]

Somewhat of a random post, but I'm wondering how many people think the same kinda way that I do..

Basically, what convinces you to believe something - despite not actually being There to "see for yourself"..?

Like for example, let's say that there's some sort of whatever article, and it says a "fact" such as "Studies have shown that" blah, blah, blah..

Like what convinces you to accept That as a fact, and not tell yourself "Someone could've just pulled that out of their a*s made that up on the spot, just because"..?

I hope I'm making sense here..I've literally became a "I don't trust people, and I've got to do / see things for Myself" in order for it to be true to me kinda person..

Like.. I'll Believe somethings or so - but I'll never push anything as a "fact" unless I actually witnessed it Or unless it's completely irrefutable (Example, it's currently raining outside where I'm at).
I see it as being 100% Honest without forcibly pushing any opinions onto anyone else..Anyone else think like this?

 

[Le Chat Nécro]

I mean, that's all well and good until you start questioning whether it was actually the volcano gods causing that eruption because you didn't personally see the plates shift. There are some things you'll just never be able to experience first hand and only trusting your eyes... well down that path lies madness and conspiracy theories.

If an article says "studies show" I usually look into those studies. What's their sample, what were the measures, did it replicate, that kind of thing. Cause lazy science is out there and sometimes people misrepresent findings by taking things out of context.

But I wouldn't go so far as to only believing the weather report if I was getting rained on. I know that there are some things I will never experience and that there are people out there who are smarter or more well versed in some subjects than I am. I know enough to know that some people just know better.

For those studies I mentioned earlier, if the methodically is sound and the results statistically significant, I'm willing to take that as, if not full fact, an honest finding. And sometimes that finding might feel biased or uncomfortable because of what they found, but that doesn't negate the study on its own. As for articles, I look into the site and their reputation, the evidence provided, and what message they're trying to convey to their audience.

For me it's less about not trusting anyone but more looking into things and using common sense.

 

[Firuthi Dragovic]

I wind up having to do a bit of my own research from time to time and what I've found is this:

Individual numbered facts (statistics, etc.) don't actually sway me nearly as easily anymore. I know how easily they can be manipulated. My tendency when presented with numbered facts is to hunt down alternate explanations for the behavior.

I tend to be better persuaded by actions and trends. Though here, as well, if someone presents something particularly off-the-wall, I WILL fact-check it.

One thing that will completely shut me off during a persuasion attempt is any "this is the only way" mentality. I pretty staunchly hold that there is ALWAYS an alternate path, and the vast majority of those alternate paths are viable.

....there's also a small repertoire of statistics that are automatic berserk buttons for me because I found out the circumstances around them, but let's not bother with that right now, shall we?

 

[Fallowfox]

If a reputable source makes a claim, and the claim isn't very surprising, I'm likely to accept it.

If the claim is surprising, then you can check other sources for consistency, check experts' comments. Or if you're an expert you can read the original research.
I'd refrain from doing that in subjects I know little about though, because understanding original research is difficult and if you're not already well-educated about it you can easily get the wrong end of the stick from it.

I'd like to point out that I try not to believe things are generally true because I think I've seen them personally. Seeing isn't believing for me; I recognise my personal experiences can actually be misleading because they might be very atypical, or I might be mistaken about what I think I see.

 

[Saurex]

I do and don't think like that.

I like to have all the facts, but I'm also aware that most people bend facts to their whim. Hell, I'm guilty of doing that once in a while as part of my job. That being said, 30 some odd percent of all statistics are made up, so I don't rely on those. Studies can be fudged, research falsified, "evidence" tampered with, etc. etc. etc.

However, I also don't need to touch everything in order to believe it.

A long time ago I had a thought: It doesn't matter what is and is not real much beyond my personal sphere of influence and existence. What someone on the other side of the world is doing or making or seeing isn't going to have a huge impact on me. Also, who cares what is and isn't real anyway? Unless it directly affects my life it isn't very relevant. I've met a lot of people who worry so much about what the Illuminati are up to, how there's some global cabal made up all banks that really runs the world, how Coca Cola buys aborted babies, grinds them up and puts them in their product (seriously, I know someone who thinks that's a thing despite the fact that if a human consumes cerebral tissue from another human in even tiny amounts they go insane) and on and on.

Are there things out there that exist that I've never seen? Obviously. Do I loose sleep worrying if something someone told me is real or not? Nope. Unless it directly affects me or those within my sphere of care, it doesn't matter.

However, I do agree that being able to make tangible contact with something does make it much easier to believe. For instance, it is not raining where I am right now.

 

[Kinare]

I've considered this thought a lot with politics especially. I don't like politics at all, but I try my best to be an educated voter and not listen to people who have a clear bias based on the party they belong to. It boggles my mind how people refuse to acknowledge bias on any side of it and will just take a party leader's word for it, even when other people do provide facts and evidence against the initial claim.

 

[Pipistrele]

I've considered this thought a lot with politics especially. I don't like politics at all, but I try my best to be an educated voter and not listen to people who have a clear bias based on the party they belong to. It boggles my mind how people refuse to acknowledge bias on any side of it and will just take a party leader's word for it, even when other people do provide facts and evidence against the initial claim.

Bias is often a side-product of strong stance on particular issue, so I consider it a necessary evil, as long as it doesn't go into malevolent and extremist territory. In many cases, the issue is so convoluted and tangled into a mess that the only way to actually work with it is to have an established opinion on the topic. That, and having a bias also helps in avoiding the centrism-related fallacies.

 

[Kinare]

Bias is often a side-product of strong stance on particular issue, so I consider it a necessary evil, as long as it doesn't go into malevolent and extremist territory. In many cases, the issue is so convoluted and tangled into a mess that the only way to actually work with it is to have an established opinion on the topic. That, and having a bias also helps in avoiding the centrism-related fallacies.

*nods* I agree having opinions and strong ones can definitely be beneficial, but being so caught up in an opinion that you'd ignore facts that would help you make a better decision... that's a definite issue. Even within my belief systems I see it happen and it bothers me that people just refuse to hear truths that can be proven just because their leader says otherwise despite no proof being given by them.