Active Now

.
Danilo_G
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Is all the information you hear FAKE? No. Is it ll TRUE? No. So you decide what to believe based on WHAT??
RosieG

Is all the information you hear FAKE? No. Is it ll TRUE? No. So you decide what to believe based on WHAT??

Posted - January 19, 2019
Tags : None

Responses


  • 10469
    One determines what to believe as fact or discount as false based on the data they already possess.  

    Let's say you come across the following news article - 

    ZNN exclusive - Scientist claims to have found a rare purple cow at the top of Mount Everest.  This rare cow produces milk that is 100% pure silver.

    How do you know whether it's true or false?  By analyzing it against what you already know. (forgive my poor flowcharting)

    First it goes through the "bias test" - 

    A. "Anything from ZNN is false".  Therefore the claim is false (stop).  However, maybe they're right this time (go to step 1)
    B. "If it's on the news it must be true".  Therefore the claim must be true (stop).  However, it sounds untrue (go to step 1)

    1. Do you trust information from a scientist?  Maybe - claim is possible (continue).  No - claim is false (stop)
    2. You've never seen a purple cow, but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't/can't exist.  Could one exist?  Maybe - claim is possible (continue).  No - claim is false (stop)
    3. They say Mt. Everest is tall, and snowy.  Could a cow survive in cold and snow?  Maybe - claim is possible (continue).  No - claim is false (stop).
    4. Silver is a metal.  Can a cow produce milk that's 100% pure silver?  Maybe - claim is possible (continue).  No - claim is false (stop)
    5. (etc.) ...... 

    You continue through this process until you come to a final conclusion - Believe what was said - "I learned something new"  Discredit what was said - "fake news".  (you can choose to stop at any point in the flowchart.  How far you go is your own choice.)

    There is no saying whether your previous information (from schooling, word of mouth, other news, etc.) was accurate.  Therefore your conclusion may (or may not) be correct.  However, the more information you analyze (throughout your life) the better the possibility that your final analysis will be accurate.

    "Only fools believe everything they’re told.  The prudent carefully consider their steps."  - Solomon 
     



      January 19, 2019 11:05 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    Here's the thing about that though. Much of what we enjoy today would have been thought impossible decades or centuries ago. Land a man on the moon? Chat with people visually on a screen in your home who are thousands of miles away worldwide at any time of day or night? Fly thousands of miles in a contained aircraft as birds fly high in the sky? Now of course there were visionaries in those times.  Brilliant minds that would sketch what they envisioned many many many years before they were actually created and used. But some of them were thought to be heretics and dared not let out what they were working on for fear of being put in prison. Every time we draw some imaginary line of impossible it is reached and breached. Quantum entanglement is very weird. But we have proof of it. Automobiles that replaced horse and buggy can now drive themselves. I wouldn't ride in one but they exist. Living on a space station for months being weightless was the stuff of early science fiction. But scientists from different countries do it all the time. So maybe there does exist a cow futurely that gives milk that is in fact silver. Maybe there really are unicorns hiding out somewhere and will reveal themselves one day when it is safe for them. Maybe the world we know (limited to 3 dimensions) is not the real world. Maybe that world is 26 dimensions but we can't access them quite yet. I'm open to anything and everything Shuhak. Aren't you too? Thank you for your thoughtful answer. The process you outline is time-consuming and arduous. I doubt most folks would bother with it. I wonder how much of our decision-making is based on intellect and how much is based on emotion? I'm gonna ask! :) This post was edited by RosieG at January 20, 2019 9:39 AM MST
      January 20, 2019 4:03 AM MST
    1

  • 10469

    I agree, my outline looks very arduous and time consuming.  However, we use this process every day, although it happens almost instantly.   Any time someone tells us something (a spouse, a teacher, a friend, a parent, a newsperson, etc.) our mind goes through this process and then renders a conclusion.  You did it when you read my response to your question.  Your conclusion was your reply.  The more times we go through the process, the more data we have to draw on for the next time (and, supposedly, the more accurate our conclusion will be).

     I was trying to be facetious in my example, but you’re right.  It could be possible.  Just because I don’t think it’s possible doesn’t mean it isn’t.   After all, I imagined it.

    I try to be open to anything and everything.  Because of that, things that I never dreamed of existing when I was younger now help me make sense of things I’ve known yet didn’t quite understand (I hope that makes sense).  I too once thought there were only 3 dimensions to this universe (2-dimensional thinking?).  Yet once I learned that there are at least 10 dimensions (holy cow!), some of what I’ve been taught began to make more sense (logically).   Even though I thought differently when I was younger, I’ve come to understand what Einstein meant when he said, “The more I learn... the less I know”.  And it's humbling.

      January 20, 2019 2:47 PM MST
    0

  • 32701
    Everything is biased. People's opinions. We all bring our personal experiences to our judgments. 

    All news outlets are biased. We must seek our news from multiple sources and know which shows are opinion (most all news media shows in the evening are opinion) If the news source claims to have people from both sides but for some reason, they all agree....it is a biased source. If they are representing opposite sites there should be disagreement and both should be able to articulate their positions with facts. Not just this person is a "child" or this person "played powerful hardball". They both acted the same using their position of power. Whether they both were childish or playing political hardball is up to the people to decide but they both did the same thing. 
      January 20, 2019 5:33 AM MST
    0

  • 6098
    In God we trust.  All others pay cash. 
      January 20, 2019 5:45 AM MST
    0