FACT vs OPINION

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

The narrative that is being perpetuated by the corporate controlled media.

Which is?

[DockDoc]

Hypotheses vs Theorems and Proofs.

There is a reason we have many more Hypotheses over Theorems and Proofs.

Often what people say is "a fact" is just a widely held belief or a hypothesis based on general agreement, observations, measurements etc that has not been proved.
Over time as our ability to gather and measure data becomes better, many 'facts' are disproved. We also discover bias has affected our measurements, observer bias, study bias etc.

So we say unproven but widely accepted things like
"It's a fact wearing a mask reduces the spread of Covid!" followed by a belief "Anyone who doesn't believe that is an idiot!"

When what we really mean to say is

"Covid transmission probably can be reduced, to an unknown degree, by wearing a mask, and that's our theory based on the scientific data currently available."

Today's facts might be tomorrow's beliefs, and "sufficient evidence" in an infinitely large spectrum across humans. Snake handling religious zealots believe if you get bitten by a snake and die, that's not proof that agitated snakes shouldn't be handled, it's just a fact you didn't have enough faith.

[GordMay]

I meant (#54 Gold vs Feathers) the common 16-ounce (0.453592kg) avoirdupois pound.
Notwithstanding, Kelkara (#63), and valhalla360 (#65), and Thumbs Up (#74) all made valid, and relevant observations.
That I have to explain what I meant, says something unflattering about my communication (& perhaps cognitive) skills.

[aqfishing]

If it’s on social media it must be fact!

[atlroofman]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

No it remains a belief. That’s all, facts have some form of demonstrable proof

The “ fact “ that those beliefs are “ mistaken “ as facts are however a major issue behind many of our current problems

Yes
It remains a belief.
BUT
Faith add's a step in the direction towords fact !

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Gord also didn't add any DISqualifiers, so nothing false about it. Since the original question was intentionally a trick question, it's a perfectly valid to respond with a trick answer.

You are the one making the assumption about what Gord meant and then making claims that the response was false based on your assumptions, not the facts of the discussion.

Makes a perfect point about the facts can be used to make completely different points and everyone is using factual information.

PS: I assume Gord meant to use the exact same definition of Pound measured under an otherwise identical situation but unless he comes back and states that was what he meant, we are still assuming.

This is an example of "litigating" facts instead of an honest engagement with what's there. You're seeking to find a way out of dealing what is a straightforward and complete simple question. The question's wording does not itself provide any reason to assume different units of weight. Its only trick is to trigger the usual perception that "feathers are light" and "gold is heavy", such that the listener ignores that equal weight is a given.

In a nutshell that's what's wrong with the science-rejection crowd. They're only after excuses, reasonable or not, for refusing to accept or engage with what's in front of their faces. There's no interest in truth.

Originally Posted by Kelkara

But supposing I decided to verify the experiment, and went to buy a 'pound' of each without qualifiers ... how much gold would I be sold?

That is the subject of this thread ... All those qualifiers would meticulously be included in the scientific research and understanding them is key to correct interpretation of the results ... they then get left out when reported in the popular press and people start to form incorrect opinions, and then one day somebody sinks a ship because they overloaded a gold-carrying ship by using it to carry compressed feathers ... and there is a public outcry that "science is all lies".

Well, a slightly less invalid objection than v360's, because it raises a practical consideration about performing the experiment, but then, when the gold vendor (after checking your credit references) mentions Troy ounces, you then have the responsibility of going back to Gord to clarify. It's still an illogical objection with regards to the statement, which does not qualify the pound. So the assumption that they are the same units of weight is entirely valid, and sufficient for answering the question.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I meant (#54 Gold vs Feathers) the common 16-ounce (0.453592kg) avoirdupois pound.
Notwithstanding, Kelkara (#63), and valhalla360 (#65), and Thumbs Up (#74) all made valid, and relevant observations.
That I have to explain what I meant, says something unflattering about my communication (& perhaps cognitive) skills.

It is a common riddle. But now that you have clarified, I will be the first to guess: They weigh the same?

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Which is?

Do you watch the news? You tell me.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Do you watch the news? You tell me.

I watch the news, I read the news, I listen to the news. You are claiming there is this thing called "the narrative". That is your assertion, not mine. You are required to provide the evidence to support your assertion, that is not my responsibility. Tell us what the "the narrative" is, please.

This thread is " FACT vs OPINION" . Your must prove the evidence, in the form of facts, that supports your opinion.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by GordMay

If we can sometimes discern (or infer) human motives, from their actions (or words), does the same actually hold true for physics?
I just ask out of passing curiosity - the subject of kinematics is too deep, for me.

Kidding aside, consider that you've walked into an indigenous population somewhere. Through an interpreter you are to define for 8-10 year olds the term "physics."

So in a single sentence...don't google it, go from the gut...in a sentence how would you define physics to little kids? Sincerely no wrong answer here.

[s/v Jedi]

Here’s how it is today

[Thumbs Up]

Tell us what the "the narrative" is, please.

Ok fine. The current most pervasive narrative being pushed (that I know of) is that the coming COVID vaccines should be trusted and be compulsory. They might not come right out and say it in those words yet but that is what is getting pushed. Anything that suggests otherwise will be relegated to the fringe, ridiculed, and dismissed. All of the news channels and major political parties agree. Must be truth right? No need to question right? Yeah right. Who can resist this massive psy-op? Are we in a trance? Is there some hidden connection that is making sure all of these media outlets are staying on task with this message?

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Kidding aside, consider that you've walked into an indigenous population somewhere. Through an interpreter you are to define for 8-10 year olds the term "physics."

So in a single sentence...don't google it, go from the gut...in a sentence how would you define physics to little kids? Sincerely no wrong answer here.

The scientific study of the way things move and why.

[Singularity]

For what it's worth, if you stress an animal, it starts paying closer attention to its environment. It starts seeing things that it had never seen before (presumably as part of an automatic looking for an escape mechanism) which can tend to exacerbate the stress:
"Oh, something new, look at that study!!"
So as the stress increases, even other things start popping into view:
"Oh my gosh, that too. They are saying that!!"
And things snowball on.

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?

Now, I suggest that sooner or later one of a few things happens:
A) the animal comes to recognize that the signs are not new, they've always been there, that it makes sense that they've always been there, and will continue to always be there into the future. Figures out what the internal stress is, deals with it internally.
B) the animal escapes
C) the animals starts clawing at the signs out of madness...leading to where? The environment described in A above, just with cleanup to do.

So to be one of the stressed ones seeing all this crazy new stuff about drug companies, etc, etc.....quite paradoxically....means that one is a victim of one's on undoing, not previously having learned to recognize the normal signs in everyday life. Escape to NoSupermarketsville if one likes, or claw at the signs, but if you're going to be around other people, the signs will always be there. If you burn the place down, one of the first things done is putting the same old signs back up.

So life's tough...if one believes that the shortest distance between 2 points is always through a cigar-smoke filled tunnel, it's tougher. In a crisis is not the best time to figure out that one should have spent a few years studying pharmacology or whatever.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Which is?

Fast forward to 1:00 and watch the remaining 00:37

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE