FACT vs OPINION

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I said nothing about presenting professional titles. But it is a useful shorthand at times. The fact is (), we all take much of what we think we know on authority. The test for us is to rely on credible authority.

You tell me you are an immunologist with a doctorate from Cornell, this comes with high credibility when discussion the current pandemic. It is easily verifiable.

The whole point of using the "appeal to authority" fallacy is to claim some professional or other specialty knowledge that the general public cannot have...so at best you are playing at semantics to claim you weren't talking about professional titles.

As far as an immunologist from Cornell...I still want the debate based on the facts (in so far as we can know facts). An immunologist may have spent his entire career in a lab with zero knowledge of public policy, how people react to restrictions or what the collateral impacts may be, so before we hand over full control of the response, we need more than if he has a piece of paper.

I've done the expert witness thing in court a few times. Credentials are just the first pass to see if you get to testify. The facts are still what makes the difference.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Eienstein didn’t nullify Newton, or proove him wrong - he “stood on his shoulders”, and extended the limits of Newton’s theories.

No, Newtonian physics was proven wrong but since it was a very good approximation of our best understanding during most typical uses and is a whole lot simpler to understand and work with, it's been kept around and is still in widespread usage.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by jackdale

For what are they preparing us?

Mandatory inoculations, of course. They are now running huge PR campaigns to quell what they call vaccine hesitancy.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Well, that settles everything.

Bet as one likes, I've yet to meet someone who can prove that the survey was purposely designed to obtain an outrageous response.

Please provide evidence for the assertion that the survey that you haven't read was designed to garner an outrageous response (where evidence is not another assertion, but actual primary-source data).

According to the survey more than 1 in 3 people you meet believe it's a complete hoax. After discussing it with hundreds of people over the last several months from different states, different political views, different education levels, different jobs, etc... and not one person claims it's a complete hoax, that gives me a pretty sound statistically basis for saying there is clearly something about the survey that doesn't line up with 35% claim the virus is a completely made up hoax...that or I need to buy a lottery ticket because there is some crazy statistical anomaly following me around.

[Singularity]

-Year 2023, Person A: "It is a fact that my taxes are too high! Look who wants to raise taxes! Typical! [silly meme added]"

-Year 2022, Govt: "It is a fact that we must raised taxes to pay for the mess of 2020-2021."

-Mid year 2020, Person B: "Um, A, you're not getting with the program and it's gonna cost us later."

-Early year 2020, Person A: "It is a fact that people are over-reacting!"

While anyone can be Person A, history finds strong correlation with certain subsets of the population to more fit that billing.

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
-JFK

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Capn Jimbo

...About 35% of American thought it was a "hoax", and most of those still do....

Early on I'd suggest in some regions of the country the number was far higher than 35%. Not because people are dumb, but because on a technical matter of this magnitude and scope it's ordinary that people will, early, fall hard one way or another.

Now, Jimbo doesn't annotate all that (a phenomenon independent of Covid), but it's just a social phenomenon that on it's own merits attention. So to not recognize this as a phenomenon unto itself, instead crying "it was the pollsters! it was the pollsters!" sort of neglects to cite that which we learn in school, or at least those phenomena that are taught in school. Regardless, a baby has been thrown out with the bathwater.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

According to the survey more than 1 in 3 people you meet believe it's a complete hoax. After discussing it with hundreds of people over the last several months from different states, different political views, different education levels, different jobs, etc... and not one person claims it's a complete hoax, that gives me a pretty sound statistically basis for saying there is clearly something about the survey that doesn't line up with 35% claim the virus is a completely made up hoax...that or I need to buy a lottery ticket because there is some crazy statistical anomaly following me around.

My point being, to go down rabbit holes finds this subsequent dialog a waste of everyone's time. Calls for evidence about what a horse is doing after it's fled the barn is a fool's errand, and I think you'd agree. Keeps some busy, but arguably, if trying to learn something, we'd all want to go upstream as that's the location where the real lessons are to be learned.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The original question wasn't straight forward. It is intentionally misleading taking advantage of the fact that most people won't fully reason it out the difference between weight and density. As the most common comparison between feathers and gold is related to density and there is a clear and large difference in density when compared in typically available forms. The question has no useful purpose other than to trick the responder into responding based on density.

So what your argument boils down to, is you can start with a misleading question but heaven forbid someone catch on and turn it around on you.

The question is NOT misleading. It contains no falsehoods. The only 'trick' is that most people have strong preconcieved ideas that gold is heavy and feathers are light, and these assumptions cause them to misread the question, missing the "pound" references. It's funny that you can't engage with a pretty simple question without grasping for "alternative facts" or claiming that it is misleading.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If facts are immutable and cannot be changed, we have no facts.

Newtonian Physics was believed to be FACT. Many still believe it to be FACT. Heck, it's still taught in school and engineers still use it...yet Einstein proved it wrong.

While belief and fact are not the same thing, your definition of FACT is wrong.

You seem to be missing that this discussion has moved away from the lay definitions of words into a more precise discussion.

No, precision is exactly what I'm after. To expand - here are my own basic definitions of a fact:

1. something observed or proven by direct evidence
2. something that is so widespread and well-understood that it is accepted without requiring evidence. Eg - gravity. For most everyday, earthly purposes, we all readily accept its existence and the basic mathematical equations that have been found to describe its most common properties. So if I'm calculating the trajectory of an artillery shell, I don't have to prove gravity from first principles before using the equations.

If a 'fact' isn't true, relative to the matter at hand, why call it a fact?

Again, you're trying to lawyer, not do science. Newtonian physics has been found to be accurate and predictive for many applications. The fact that Einstein found more detailed information that applies in special cases does not alter the usefulness of Newtonian physics. The fact that Einstein proved that Newtonian physics does not completely describe some behaviours at the extreme edges does not make it 'wrong' for the cases where it does.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Those with credible facts, will present the facts and not rely on their professional title.

Basically anyone going on about their title, usually is trying to make up for a lack of facts.

This is just trying to elevate the status of bad arguments by attempting to diminish the experts that you disagree with. This isn't science.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Experts say several factors argue for mRNA vaccines’ safety.
For one, mRNA can’t cause an infection.
It also doesn’t enter the cell’s nucleus, or affects genetic material (it’s non-replicating), so the chance of its integration into human DNA is believed to be very low.
In addition, the body breaks down mRNA and its lipid carrier within a matter of hours, assuaging some concerns about long-term risks. However, this rapid degradation raises questions, about mRNA vaccines’ protective duration.

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and Ribonucleic acid (RNA) perform different functions in humans.
DNA replicates and stores genetic information. It is a blueprint for all genetic information, contained within an organism
RNA converts the genetic information contained within DNA to a format used to build proteins, and then moves it to ribosomal protein factories. Messenger RNA (mRNA) copies portions of genetic code, a process called transcription, and transports these copies to ribosomes, which are the cellular factories that facilitate the production of proteins from this code.

Experts say....
Researchers have playing with this exciting new technology of mRNA medicine and trying to get it's first approvals for a few years and it is promising technology but we are now talking about injecting the world with it and it remains pretty much untested.

RNA is a short step from DNA. We have enzymes in our bodies that convert them.

I am sure that the experts said the polio inoculations would be safe too in their rush to roll them out. Aside from the Cutter incident (which caused 40000 cases of polio), the shots contained SV40 (a monkey virus) which is now implicated in several types of cancer that are prevalent today.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10472327/
A useful research tool in this COVID time is to use google search time settings to do a search pre covid. I followed the Zika scare very closely and was very skeptical of the motives behind it. They wanted to roll out this new tech then but it didn't happen.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/...-trouble-mrna/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3488

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Calls for evidence about what a horse is doing after it's fled the barn is a fool's errand,

More like calls the horse has left the barn while I'm sitting there watching him munch on hay in his stall.

The 35% number is completely non-credible.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The question is NOT misleading. It contains no falsehoods.


....

This is just trying to elevate the status of bad arguments by attempting to diminish the experts that you disagree with. This isn't science.

Misleading doesn't include falsehoods. In fact it typically uses true facts to lead you to the wrong conclusion.

How is asking for facts not expert titles going against science? We can debate facts but it's a lot harder to have a meaningful scientific debate when all that matters is does the guy have the correct sheeps skin on the wall.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

According to the survey more than 1 in 3 people you meet believe it's a complete hoax.

Already you're shifting the goalposts. Now the claim you're fighting is that a third of Americans think it's a complete hoax. Nice.

Based simply on posts here in this thread, it's entirely plausible to me that at least a third of Americans, and many others, think it's a hoax, to some degree. Why else would they be saying that we're all overreacting. They'll mouth the words "yes it's not a hoax" but then go on about how its severity or contagiousness has been overstated, or darkly intimating that it's being used as cover to alter society.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Mandatory inoculations, of course. They are now running huge PR campaigns to quell what they call vaccine hesitancy.

God I know , Skynet is coming , run for the hills, arm yourself to the teeth

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Misleading doesn't include falsehoods. In fact it typically uses true facts to lead you to the wrong conclusion.

Nope. In the question at hand, the reader's knee-jerk assumptions lead them to the wrong conclusion. Nothing more.

How is asking for facts not expert titles going against science? We can debate facts but it's a lot harder to have a meaningful scientific debate when all that matters is does the guy have the correct sheeps skin on the wall.

Because in most cases, today's online skeptic has neither the background nor the intellectual honesty to participate in a genuine scientific debate. Example... the endless CC bunfights on CF.

All you're doing is ploughing the ground for people to think that parroting 'facts' passed around in echo-chambers or propaganda sites amounts to legitimate scientific debate. Yes this goes for both sides... which is why the best idea is usually to let the experts hash it out.

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

Death WITH covid ≠ death FROM covid

Think it’s like 6% of the covid seats were straight up FROM covid, which proves my driving to the test is more dangerous point


Here’s it from a politician who’s also a doctor, and is into fringe extremist stuff like the bill of rights lol

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=ElN5nlGUAi8

So, by your numbers there are ~16k deaths FROM Covid in the US this year. At ~40k annual deaths from traffic accidents that would say that 40% of all traffic fatalities are from driving to Covid tests. A little hard to find that credulous, you'll have to provide some facts on number of miles driven, etc. to back up the idea that driving to Covid tests represents 40% of driving miles/fatalities (for myself, I have driven to two Covid tests, am still alive, and driving to the two tests represents far less than 1% of the driving I have done this year).

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Already you're shifting the goalposts. Now the claim you're fighting is that a third of Americans think it's a complete hoax. Nice.

Based simply on posts here in this thread, it's entirely plausible to me that at least a third of Americans, and many others, think it's a hoax, to some degree. Why else would they be saying that we're all overreacting. They'll mouth the words "yes it's not a hoax" but then go on about how its severity or contagiousness has been overstated, or darkly intimating that it's being used as cover to alter society.

Not moving the goal posts...You are finally starting to grasp my point.

"Hoaxes" are generally though of as extreme. So by phrasing it as a hoax, we assume those people have an extreme view...aka, the whole thing is made a made up hoax.

Now if qualified as you did "it's a hoax, to some degree", it's still a biased way to phrase it but that's a lot closer to reality but that wouldn't have drawn the same gasps of fear over how many crazy people are out there. In fact, people might wonder why the percentage isn't even higher.

An honest survey would have used more neutral language. Maybe "has there been some degree of exaggeration related to the virus?". Or even better provide a range of answers (in both directions from neutral), so respondents could provide a more nuanced response...of course, that doesn't lead to a good headline and people will see a reasonable set of responses with a few outliers in either direction so it doesn't serve a purpose for the media.

Of course, you would be screaming bloody murder that it's a fake survey if I said 35% of people believe they are going to die from the virus and I can phase a survey that will get something darn close to that number by playing with the way the question is phrased. Anyone who digs in would quickly see the issue but once the headlines are out, and the media empires have pushed the narrative that belief is hard to counter. But I'm sure that's just crazy talk because the media would never do that.