Notices
Results 1 to 42 of 42

Thread: Fake news.

  1. #1 Fake news. 
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    942
    Word of the year.
    https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-year-for-2017

    But how far do we need to go back to find any reliable news?
    Should we rebrand the Good News Bible the Fake News Bible, for instance.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Word of the year. . . . But how far do we need to go back to find any reliable news?
    Just as much reliable news as there ever was. What's new is politicians using the term "fake news" to try to diminish news that is not politically correct.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,515
    I feel it is news that is created to divert from important news.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,884
    It's a business, like selling used cars.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,919
    I think that there needs to be differentiation between “reporting” and “punditry”.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    942
    DNA test proves Donald Trump is the reincarnation of George Patton.

    Is Trump the Reincarnation of General George Patton? | president | DONALD TRUMP | reincarnation | NTD.TV
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Word of the year. . . . But how far do we need to go back to find any reliable news?
    Just as much reliable news as there ever was. What's new is politicians using the term "fake news" to try to diminish news that is not politically correct.
    I do not think that Donald T would try to diminish any news that is not Politically Correct. Why should he ?
    Last edited by Dave Wilson; November 17th, 2017 at 03:27 PM. Reason: grammer
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    942
    Now, President Reagan on meeting the young Trump said this:
    For the life of me, and I’ll never know how to explain it, when I met that young man, I felt like I was the one shaking hands with a president.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Now, President Reagan on meeting the young Trump said this:
    For the life of me, and I’ll never know how to explain it, when I met that young man, I felt like I was the one shaking hands with a president.
    What you have said, about what Ronald Reagan had said, to a younger Donald Trump in 1987 is disputed. However the fact that they did meet in the Whitehouse is not undisputed.
    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ro...w=1103&bih=524
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Word of the year. . . . But how far do we need to go back to find any reliable news?
    Just as much reliable news as there ever was. What's new is politicians using the term "fake news" to try to diminish news that is not politically correct.
    I do not think that Donald T would try to diminish any news that is not Politically Correct. Why should he ?
    Please stop trolling...
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Word of the year. . . . But how far do we need to go back to find any reliable news?
    Just as much reliable news as there ever was. What's new is politicians using the term "fake news" to try to diminish news that is not politically correct.
    I do not think that Donald T would try to diminish any news that is not Politically Correct. Why should he ?
    Please stop trolling...
    You are always accusing people of some perceived crime or injustice. Why don't you just post something useful on this thread instead of your usual , " I will shut you down " stuff.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Again, please stop trolling.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    942
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    I do not think that Donald T would try to diminish any news that is not Politically Correct. Why should he ?
    Because it conflicts with his political agenda. For example, the news that the coal industry is in a steep decline is not politically correct - so he lies about it and says it is doing great.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Now, President Reagan on meeting the young Trump said this:
    For the life of me, and I’ll never know how to explain it, when I met that young man, I felt like I was the one shaking hands with a president.
    And Matt Groening predicted that Trump would win, too.

    In 2000, an episode of The Simpsons showed Lisa Simpson in the White House in 2020, winning after a Trump presidency. "We've inherited quite the budget crunch from President Trump. How bad is it, secretary van Houten?" He shows her a graph. "The country is broke? How can that be?" she asks.

    Pretty prescient.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    20
    Just stop believing anything on the news that is not proven to you. That includes most of mainstream news.
    There is no need to form an opinion about everything. Known unknowns are much better than unknown unknowns. Especially if the unknown unknowns come in the form of misinformation which is believed in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    942
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyber View Post
    There is no need to form an opinion about everything. Known unknowns are much better than unknown unknowns. Especially if the unknown unknowns come in the form of misinformation which is believed in.
    So where should we stand on the unknown knowns?

    The BBC reports Max Clifford (British publicist who died 2 days ago) was the 'king of fake news'.
    Sounds a bit harsh as the appalling Sun newspaper was surely the biggest culprit in buying into his stories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyber View Post
    There is no need to form an opinion about everything. Known unknowns are much better than unknown unknowns. Especially if the unknown unknowns come in the form of misinformation which is believed in.
    So where should we stand on the unknown knowns?
    Those are not relevant because fake news does not make you choose between that option. You either believe the fake news and get an unknown unknown (which means you do not know the truth and do not know that you do not know it) or you do not believe it and get an know unknown (which means that you do not know the truth but you know that you do not know it).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyber View Post
    Just stop believing anything on the news that is not proven to you. That includes most of mainstream news.
    There is no need to form an opinion about everything. Known unknowns are much better than unknown unknowns. Especially if the unknown unknowns come in the form of misinformation which is believed in.
    This is a foolish stance that condemns whoever follows it to perpetual ignorance.

    Anybody with any education will be aware of the existence of a variety of points of view on almost any subject and of the need to check sources of information, in order to discriminate between that which is reliable and that which is not. It is perfectly possible to acquire knowledge of a topic while maintaining a degree of reservation, in case new information requires you to revise what you thought you knew. In fact the ability to change one's mind in the light of new information is a mark of intellectual confidence and maturity.

    This is the stance taken by all intelligent and educated people. What they do not do choose to remain in ignorance, for fear that something they encounter may prove not to be correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    942
    A dose of Persian wisdom.
    'A thirteenth-century Persian poet, Ibn Yamin, said there are four types of men:
    • One who knows and knows that he knows... His horse of wisdom will reach the skies.
    • One who knows, but doesn't know that he knows... He is fast asleep, so you should wake him up!
    • One who doesn't know, but knows that he doesn't know... His limping mule will eventually get him home.
    • One who doesn't know and doesn't know that he doesn't know... He will be eternally lost in his hopeless oblivion!


    #3 Trump?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post

    This is a foolish stance that condemns whoever follows it to perpetual ignorance.
    All I am saying is to not believe things based on blind faith in authorities and to only believe in that which has been proven to you. How does that result in ignorance? Is blind faith really such a valuable source of information?

    Anybody with any education will be aware of the existence of a variety of points of view on almost any subject and of the need to check sources of information, in order to discriminate between that which is reliable and that which is not. It is perfectly possible to acquire knowledge of a topic while maintaining a degree of reservation, in case new information requires you to revise what you thought you knew. In fact the ability to change one's mind in the light of new information is a mark of intellectual confidence and maturity.

    This is the stance taken by all intelligent and educated people. What they do not do choose to remain in ignorance, for fear that something they encounter may prove not to be correct.
    I never said that one should not believe anything or never change his mind. I just said to not believe in things that have not been proven to you. Do you mean to say that everything you believe in is based on things that have not been proven to you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyber View Post
    All I am saying is to not believe things based on blind faith in authorities and to only believe in that which has been proven to you.
    Getting proof - especially of global events would be a time-consuming process. Ergo most people would remain in perpetual ignorance.

    Is blind faith really such a valuable source of information?
    Learn to read: "blind faith" wasn't proposed or advocated.

    I just said to not believe in things that have not been proven to you.
    And, given what you (apparently) believe, your method doesn't work (at least for obtaining factual information).

    Do you mean to say that everything you believe in is based on things that have not been proven to you?
    Again you fail to read (or understand): that wasn't what was said.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,884
    I've reached a certain age where I don't give two rat's asses about the news. More like I can't change it, so what, who cares, don't believe it, don't sway me, vote buying, hearsay, no proof, lies, truths, half truths, two sides to every story, too early, too late, network slant/agenda, gullibility test, Wolf Blitzer and the list goes on. How can anyone tell if a fake news story is faked?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyber View Post
    All I am saying is to not believe things based on blind faith in authorities and to only believe in that which has been proven to you.
    Getting proof - especially of global events would be a time-consuming process. Ergo most people would remain in perpetual ignorance.
    And believing in lies would fix their ignorance how exactly? If you cannot prove it then you do not know it and are ignorant on it. Just assuming things without proof will not solve the ignorance, it will merely increase it by masking it.
    In some regards we will have to be ignorant. But at least my method reduces the ignorance in those cases by making one at least aware of their own ignorance.

    Is blind faith really such a valuable source of information?
    Learn to read: "blind faith" wasn't proposed or advocated.
    If you believe the news without proof then you have blind faith in the news. Believing in the news without proof for the sake of reducing ignorance is being advocated.
    I just said to not believe in things that have not been proven to you.
    And, given what you (apparently) believe, your method doesn't work (at least for obtaining factual information).
    Ditto to you.
    Do you mean to say that everything you believe in is based on things that have not been proven to you?
    Again you fail to read (or understand): that wasn't what was said.
    He said that what I propose (that is not believing things that are not proven to you) results in ignorance. But how can that be? This method would only influence the unproven things you believe in. Hence if it results in so much ignorance then you must believe in a lot of unproven things.


    My only point is that one should not believe in things that are unproven to him. If we ought to believe things that are not proven to us, then what should we base our beliefs on? What else is there besides evidence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyber View Post
    And believing in lies would fix their ignorance how exactly?
    How do you establish that they're lies?

    If you cannot prove it then you do not know it and are ignorant on it. Just assuming things without proof will not solve the ignorance, it will merely increase it by masking it.
    And yet -as pointed out - getting proof is highly time-consuming (if not impossible).

    But at least my method reduces the ignorance in those cases by making one at least aware of their own ignorance.
    Given some of your comments elsewhere this is not in fact true. You've simply fallen for "other" lies.

    If you believe the news without proof then you have blind faith in the news.
    Not even close.
    I wonder, how - exactly - do you get the "truth"? What are your sources? (I assume, for example, that you're not privy to government meetings and the like, ergo "proof" is rather hard to obtain).

    Ditto to you.
    Yet to be shown.

    He said that what I propose (that is not believing things that are not proven to you) results in ignorance.
    He also said "check sources of information, in order to discriminate between that which is reliable and that which is not". Simply dismissing everything unproven as false is a way to perpetual ignorance.
    I also wonder how you got "proof" that (for example) "original moonlanding video has tons of flaws proving it to be fake" - or did you, personally, check the raw video footage and take extensive lessons in optics, data transmission etc etc. Or, and I'm just guessing here, perhaps you simply took someone's (unproven) word for it.

    My only point is that one should not believe in things that are unproven to him. If we ought to believe things that are not proven to us, then what should we base our beliefs on? What else is there besides evidence?
    And - as has been pointed out - getting proof is rather more difficult than you imply here.
    People generally operate on weight of evidence, or even likelihood, rather than proof.
    Oh, and "one should not believe in things that are unproven to him" is somewhat ironic since your comment (elsewhere) "You probably do not believe that God exists either" implies that you do - otherwise why bring it up? - and yet there is no proof of "god" at all. How do you explain that dichotomy? Unless, of course, you accept that "proof" is entirely subjective (in which case it's not scientific1) and your entire premise falls down...


    1 Even disregarding the fact that science doesn't deal in "proofs".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyber View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post

    This is a foolish stance that condemns whoever follows it to perpetual ignorance.
    All I am saying is to not believe things based on blind faith in authorities and to only believe in that which has been proven to you. How does that result in ignorance? Is blind faith really such a valuable source of information?

    Anybody with any education will be aware of the existence of a variety of points of view on almost any subject and of the need to check sources of information, in order to discriminate between that which is reliable and that which is not. It is perfectly possible to acquire knowledge of a topic while maintaining a degree of reservation, in case new information requires you to revise what you thought you knew. In fact the ability to change one's mind in the light of new information is a mark of intellectual confidence and maturity.

    This is the stance taken by all intelligent and educated people. What they do not do choose to remain in ignorance, for fear that something they encounter may prove not to be correct.
    I never said that one should not believe anything or never change his mind. I just said to not believe in things that have not been proven to you. Do you mean to say that everything you believe in is based on things that have not been proven to you?
    Proof only exists in logic, mathematics and law.

    In all other disciplines of thought, and in ordinary life, we do not deal in proof but in likelihood. The historian consults a variety of sources, examines their provenance and likely bias and then produces his or her own synthesis of the topic of study. The scientist starts his research by reading critically the literature on what has already been done in his area of interest. And so it goes with other fields of study and even with our own reading of the newspapers and the internet.

    One of the most important lessons in the whole of education, surely, is to be able to compare and contrast, critically, rival sources of information, and extract what you think it all amounts to, with what degree of certainty and with what caveats around it. "Blind faith" is exactly what this process is not.

    As to your question, yes of course. Everything I believe is based on unproven things. If something is proven, belief does not come into it. It is an established fact. Belief, surely, is the willingness to rely on things that are likely but not proven. Such as the models of science for instance. It seems to me that focusing exclusively on proof and fact is a dead end. Proof and facts are great if you can get them but they are rare. The world is mostly shades of grey. Adult life requires acting in the presence of uncertainty.

    And curiosity about the world, which is a sign of intelligence, requires that one explores far beyond that which can be proved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyber View Post
    And believing in lies would fix their ignorance how exactly?
    How do you establish that they're lies?
    Sometimes with research, sometimes I do not. However I am not going to believe in the news just because I do not know whether it is true or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Proof only exists in logic, mathematics and law.

    In all other disciplines of thought, and in ordinary life, we do not deal in proof but in likelihood. The historian consults a variety of sources, examines their provenance and likely bias and then produces his or her own synthesis of the topic of study. The scientist starts his research by reading critically the literature on what has already been done in his area of interest. And so it goes with other fields of study and even with our own reading of the newspapers and the internet.
    I was sloppy. With "proven" I meant things for which there is evidence, not proof. Evidenced is not really a word so I thought proven would be the next best thing to use but I guess it caused some confusion. I did use the word evidence instead of proof deliberately to indicate it was about likelihoods though, since I knew proof and evidence are different things.
    One of the most important lessons in the whole of education, surely, is to be able to compare and contrast, critically, rival sources of information, and extract what you think it all amounts to, with what degree of certainty and with what caveats around it. "Blind faith" is exactly what this process is not.
    There is no rivaling information in the mainstream news. All stations are owned by a few people.

    As to your question, yes of course. Everything I believe is based on unproven things. If something is proven, belief does not come into it. It is an established fact. Belief, surely, is the willingness to rely on things that are likely but not proven. Such as the models of science for instance. It seems to me that focusing exclusively on proof and fact is a dead end. Proof and facts are great if you can get them but they are rare. The world is mostly shades of grey. Adult life requires acting in the presence of uncertainty.

    And curiosity about the world, which is a sign of intelligence, requires that one explores far beyond that which can be proved.
    https://www.wordnik.com/words/believe
    Believing means you accept it as true. It is not necessarily connected to proof or evidence. People can ignore proofs to not believe in proven things, or believe things without evidence.

    But you did not answer what I meant to ask. That was my bad since I was sloppy with the word "proven". But my intended question basically was: What am I to base my beliefs on if not on some kind of evidence? The news does not even offer evidence, it just states what it wants us to believe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyber View Post
    Evidenced is not really a word
    Of course it is. Even if it weren't in the dictionary (it is (*)) it would still be a word. Honestly, I despair.

    The news does not even offer evidence, it just states what it wants us to believe.
    There are plenty of news programs that interview experts (but maybe you are one of those who despise experts for their expertise) or eye-witnesses, present documentary or photographic evidence to support the story, etc.

    But, of course, if you are willing to believe in implausible conspiracies, you could imagine that all of this evidence is fabricated.

    (*) I guess I should provide some evidence: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...evidenced%20by
    Evidence is a regular verb and so the past tense is "evidenced".
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyber View Post
    Sometimes with research, sometimes I do not. However I am not going to believe in the news just because I do not know whether it is true or not.
    And yet you managed to make the blanket assumption/ accusation that they are lies...

    Evidenced is not really a word
    So you're ignorant in more than one field... try here.[suop1[/sup]

    There is no rivaling information in the mainstream news. All stations are owned by a few people.
    Doesn't automatically mean what they produce is lies.

    What am I to base my beliefs on if not on some kind of evidence?
    Which brings me back to my earlier points:
    I wonder, how - exactly - do you get the "truth"? What are your sources? (I assume, for example, that you're not privy to government meetings and the like, ergo "proof" is rather hard to obtain).
    I also wonder how you got "proof" that (for example) "original moonlanding video has tons of flaws proving it to be fake" - or did you, personally, check the raw video footage and take extensive lessons in optics, data transmission etc etc. Or, and I'm just guessing here, perhaps you simply took someone's (unproven) word for it.
    And:
    ... there is no proof [Note: nor "evidence" -with the caveat stated later] of "god" at all. How do you explain that dichotomy? Unless, of course, you accept that "proof" is entirely subjective (in which case it's not scientific1) and your entire premise falls down...

    1 That claim - that "evidenced" isn't a word - gives the lie to your "method" of "getting proof" and "finding out for yourself": you decided (on a whim?) that there was no such word and - despite being sat in front of a computer with the entire internet available to you for checking - went ahead and made the claim regardless of the facts.
    Where was your "proof" (or evidence)? Why didn't you bother to find out? Simply because it suited your pre-conceived belief...
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; December 12th, 2017 at 02:55 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyber View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyber View Post
    And believing in lies would fix their ignorance how exactly?
    How do you establish that they're lies?
    Sometimes with research, sometimes I do not. However I am not going to believe in the news just because I do not know whether it is true or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Proof only exists in logic, mathematics and law.

    In all other disciplines of thought, and in ordinary life, we do not deal in proof but in likelihood. The historian consults a variety of sources, examines their provenance and likely bias and then produces his or her own synthesis of the topic of study. The scientist starts his research by reading critically the literature on what has already been done in his area of interest. And so it goes with other fields of study and even with our own reading of the newspapers and the internet.
    I was sloppy. With "proven" I meant things for which there is evidence, not proof. Evidenced is not really a word so I thought proven would be the next best thing to use but I guess it caused some confusion. I did use the word evidence instead of proof deliberately to indicate it was about likelihoods though, since I knew proof and evidence are different things.
    One of the most important lessons in the whole of education, surely, is to be able to compare and contrast, critically, rival sources of information, and extract what you think it all amounts to, with what degree of certainty and with what caveats around it. "Blind faith" is exactly what this process is not.
    There is no rivaling information in the mainstream news. All stations are owned by a few people.

    As to your question, yes of course. Everything I believe is based on unproven things. If something is proven, belief does not come into it. It is an established fact. Belief, surely, is the willingness to rely on things that are likely but not proven. Such as the models of science for instance. It seems to me that focusing exclusively on proof and fact is a dead end. Proof and facts are great if you can get them but they are rare. The world is mostly shades of grey. Adult life requires acting in the presence of uncertainty.

    And curiosity about the world, which is a sign of intelligence, requires that one explores far beyond that which can be proved.
    https://www.wordnik.com/words/believe
    Believing means you accept it as true. It is not necessarily connected to proof or evidence. People can ignore proofs to not believe in proven things, or believe things without evidence.

    But you did not answer what I meant to ask. That was my bad since I was sloppy with the word "proven". But my intended question basically was: What am I to base my beliefs on if not on some kind of evidence? The news does not even offer evidence, it just states what it wants us to believe.
    OK if we expand from "proven" to include assertions for which there is evidence, then there is in fact plenty of evidence offered in the better quality media. Good newspapers and TV channels support their stories with interviews with reputable people, film footage, statistics that can be independently verified, etc. And of course it is untrue that all the media are controlled by the same people. I usually look at the BBC but then I also take a look at a couple of newspapers with different political leanings. Generally you find out more about an issue from doing this, and you also find some stories that on balance you decide you don't believe.

    So I do not at all accept your contention that the media do not offer evidence. But then I don't know what media you have in mind, of course.

    I think it is worth taking a high quality newspaper with international focus, as well as watching websites or TV. I find that these will generally have an extended article by some commentator on an issue of the day. While this may reflect the bias of the writer, it will often link a number of facts or elements of the issue that you can then look out for subsequently, plus of course it goes into more depth than a TV bulletin or web article. And then, whether or not you buy that particular writer's thesis, you can form a more informed judgement for yourself.

    One last thought: it has always been the case that newspaper and TV editors want to increase traffic, so they tend to sensationalise. For anything important it is usually best to wait a few days to let the stories settle and for the froth to disappear before you make your own, tentative, judgement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    I would like to see your evidence that Huffington Post, Fox, BBC, Al-jezzera, and Wired are all owned by the same people...
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyber View Post
    There is no rivaling information in the mainstream news. All stations are owned by a few people.
    That is, of course untrue. And becoming more untrue all the time, as additional channels lower barriers of entry into the media.

    But beyond that, why would you stick to "mainstream news" however you define that term? There are good sources for given fields. For example, the journal Nature is a better source for scientific news than FOX News or CNN. IEEE publications are better sources of information for computer science news than Wired.

    Believing means you accept it as true.
    Or as simply more likely true than not.
    The news does not even offer evidence, it just states what it wants us to believe.
    From statements like this I get the feeling you are concentrating on FOX News or MoveOn or similar sites. Most news sites do NOT state what they want you to believe; they state what happens, and then (in many cases) add their own interpretation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    20
    There is no rivaling information in the mainstream news. All stations are owned by a few people.
    Doesn't automatically mean what they produce is lies.
    It does however debunk the the argument that I was using this against.

    There are plenty of news programs that interview experts (but maybe you are one of those who despise experts for their expertise) or eye-witnesses, present documentary or photographic evidence to support the story, etc.
    The word of an expert is not evidence, it is authority. Eye-witnesses? You mean those "random" people they interview on the street? How do you know they were not actors? Answer: You do not (and often neither do I, but that is my point). As for photo's, I have seen them busted multiple times where they ripped it out of context completely changing the story. In addition to that how do you know that they do not edit it or use Hollywood trickery? I have seen footage of King Kong but I do not believe him to exist. Do you also believe in every reality tv show because they claim it is real and show footage and "witnesses"? Or are they not authoritative enough so you would rather believe a small group of about 6 powerful companies to form your beliefs about the world?


    How I get my truth? By evidence.To find out for example if the moonlanding is real, I look at the footage they made. If I find flaws I conclude it must be a hoax. Then I search for people to debunk me. When they fail, I eventually stop researching it and move on.
    Dywyddyr said there was physical evidence of the moonlanding, how did you confirm that?
    Like this: 'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake - Telegraph ?
    Of course I do not take this article seriously since I never confirmed it myself. However for someone who takes the news so seriously as you do this must be quite a shocker. Or you could just cherry-pick which articles to believe. Just pretend that some authorities are more authority-ish depending on if you like what they say.

    I used to have blind faith in the news like you do, but nowadays it amazes me that people trust the news.
    Why would the news give higher priority to informing us than gaining power and wealth? And if the news does prefer power and wealth over informing us (meaning they would lie for profit) then why do we have blind faith in it? The news does not provide evidence, it merely says it has evidence. Big difference there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,545
    Yep, Cyber definitely isn't playing with a full deck...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    So, to you, the entire lunar mission series was fake, simply due to a single mislabeled rock?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,545
    He's just another conspiracy nut. A waste of bandwidth and not worth wasting time arguing with...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyber View Post
    It does however debunk the the argument that I was using this against.
    How so? (Apart your "few owners" from being untrue...)

    The word of an expert is not evidence, it is authority.
    How do people get to be experts?

    Eye-witnesses? You mean those "random" people they interview on the street? How do you know they were not actors? Answer: You do not (and often neither do I
    Oh wait, you're saying that some (most? all?) are actors?
    How do you know?

    How I get my truth? By evidence.
    Evidence from where?
    This is my point - all YOU have access to is secondary evidence.

    To find out for example if the moonlanding is real, I look at the footage they made. If I find flaws I conclude it must be a hoax.
    I wonder why you don't conclude that you don't enough?

    Then I search for people to debunk me. When they fail, I eventually stop researching it and move on.
    And they fail because...?
    Looking at the general tenor of your posts here they "fail" because you:
    A) refuse to learn, and
    B) you've already made your mind up.

    there was physical evidence of the moonlanding, how did you confirm that?
    Multiple independent sources (as has already been pointed out.

    Like this: 'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake - Telegraph ?
    Of course I do not take this article seriously since I never confirmed it myself. However for someone who takes the news so seriously as you do this must be quite a shocker. Or you could just cherry-pick which articles to believe. Just pretend that some authorities are more authority-ish depending on if you like what they say.
    1) You're making assumptions about me, and
    2) Given that the (supposed) Moon rock was presented just over two months after Apollo 11 returned I find it surprising that anyone assumed it actually was genuine. In fact Wiki has this to say "Drees ... formed the mistaken impression that the "moon rock" he received was from the Apollo 11 mission" and that its provenance was queried in 1992 and not confirmed as being of Lunar origin.

    I used to have blind faith in the news like you do
    And another assumption.

    why do we have blind faith in it?
    One more (and final1) time: blind faith doesn't come into it.

    The news does not provide evidence, it merely says it has evidence.
    And yet so far you haven't shown that you reach conclusions by any other method than trusting sources with their claimed evidence.

    1 It has been pointed out to you that "blind faith" isn't what happens, if you persist in this dishonesty you will receive a temporary ban.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyber View Post
    Eye-witnesses? You mean those "random" people they interview on the street? How do you know they were not actors? Answer: You do not (and often neither do I, but that is my point).
    And how do you know that even the things you see yourself are real? After all, this might be The Matrix, and everything you see, hear and feel might just be fictional inputs into your senses.

    But probably not.
    How I get my truth? By evidence.To find out for example if the moonlanding is real, I look at the footage they made. If I find flaws I conclude it must be a hoax.

    ?? There are flaws in the periodic table. Do you therefore conclude that it is a hoax, and matter is not made of atoms?
    Or you could just cherry-pick which articles to believe. Just pretend that some authorities are more authority-ish depending on if you like what they say.
    Of course. Everyone does this. I consider Nature to have more authority on science than the National Enquirer (or any other paper in the supermarket checkout line.) I expect you do similar cherrypicking.
    Why would the news give higher priority to informing us than gaining power and wealth?
    Because there are people like me who ensure that the best way for them to achieve power and wealth is to accurately report the news.

    If that's not your thing there is always FOX News.
    And if the news does prefer power and wealth over informing us (meaning they would lie for profit) then why do we have blind faith in it?
    Simple; we don't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyber View Post
    How I get my truth? By evidence
    Oddly, I don't believe that without seeing some evidence.

    To find out for example if the moonlanding is real, I look at the footage they made. If I find flaws I conclude it must be a hoax.
    That's not at all insane.

    Have you considered any of the vast number of more likely possibilities? Number 1 being you don't have a clue what you are looking at. Or maybe someone planted an edited photo to make you think the moon landings were a hoax.

    Then I search for people to debunk me. When they fail
    By "fail" I assume you mean that you just ignore any information that contradicts your beliefs. But why not start a thread with your "evidence" for it being a hoax. It might be amusing.

    I used to have blind faith in the news like you do
    Going from believing everything to believing nothing is not exactly rational.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    942
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I've reached a certain age where I don't give two rat's asses about the news. More like I can't change it, so what, who cares, don't believe it, don't sway me, vote buying, hearsay, no proof, lies, truths, half truths, two sides to every story, too early, too late, network slant/agenda, gullibility test, Wolf Blitzer and the list goes on. How can anyone tell if a fake news story is faked?
    If the fake news story is itself faked, might it then be true?

    At least there are no fake news stories in science. We're in safer hands there.
    For instance, we all know Einstein discovered relativity, Darwin was the first to evolution by natural selection, Dawkins was the first to describe selfish genes and memes.

    Relativity: How about Lorenz, Poincare, Minkowski being the first.
    Evolution by N/S: Wallace was the first.
    Selfish genes: Dawkins gives some credit to Hamilton and Williams for selfish genes, but not to Semon for memes. (A Note on the Origin of Memes/Mnemes)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,602
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    At least there are no fake news stories in science. We're in safer hands there.
    What a silly thing to say.


    Relativity: How about Lorenz, Poincare, Minkowski being the first.
    They (and others) contributed some ideas. It was Einstein who pulled it all together into a coherent theory.

    But, as is well known, all science "stands on the shoulders of giants"; in other words, builds on the work already done.

    Evolution by N/S: Wallace was the first.
    And, no, Wallace wasn't first. They worked in parallel and came to the same conclusions at the same time (as near as we can tell, given the fact that both were in remote parts of the world without the ability to communicate for much of the research).

    In science, it doesn't really matter who was "first". So I'm surprised you didn't mention deliberate frauds such as "Piltdown man" or "vaccines causing autism".

    Or even: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigle...law_of_eponymy
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    942
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    In science, it doesn't really matter who was "first". So I'm surprised you didn't mention deliberate frauds such as "Piltdown man" or "vaccines causing autism".
    I'll give my wrists a good slapping.
    Here's a Trump classic.
    https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/...248385?lang=en
    No warming here, in Stratford Upon Avon. It's f'ing freezing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Fake meteorite, Hematite? You tell me
    By ishmaelblues in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 6th, 2014, 09:36 AM
  2. Consciousness, real or fake?
    By Weterman in forum Biology
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: February 26th, 2014, 08:06 PM
  3. There's good news and there's bad news.
    By Cyberia in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 17th, 2009, 04:59 PM
  4. Did We Fake the Mars Landings Too?
    By Cosmored in forum History
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: August 12th, 2008, 06:32 AM
  5. Poll: OOPARTS: real of fake?
    By Sciler in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 16th, 2008, 01:28 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •