Author Topic: Facts for evidence based discussions  (Read 1289 times)

kaysixteen

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
Facts for evidence based discussions
« on: June 30, 2019, 08:19:22 PM »
So let me revisit a topic I brought up last fall, namely does anyone have any concise links to places that list serious facts exposing the various Trump scandals, AND exposing the various lies and conspiracy propaganda that many Trumpites have bathed themselves in and largely accepted.  In case anyone wonders, it is true that I just returned from an all day church outing and, ahem, I was again gobsmacked by the, well, ahh, err, resolute inability to consider that the propaganda based talking points and programed worldview that I... Well you get the idea.

spork

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
  • CHE Posts: 18449
Re: Facts for evidence based discussions
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2019, 02:57:53 AM »
It's terrible writing, used to obfuscate the fact that the authors actually have nothing to say.

nebo113

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1030
Re: Facts for evidence based discussions
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2019, 04:39:06 AM »
To be accepted as the basis of discussion, "facts" themselves must be agreed upon.  tRump's cult minions will never agree  that Mueller was/is an honest man.  Rather, they have already accepted that he is an enemy of their dear leader who hired 18 evil Democrats to harass the beloved leader with false information.

tRump's minions, as with their revered leader, don't let facts interfere with their version of reality.

spork

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
  • CHE Posts: 18449
Re: Facts for evidence based discussions
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2019, 06:55:00 AM »
Along those lines, it might be interesting to have church members watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS7pnPlQLcY.

"I am the Lord thy God. Though shalt have no others gods before Me."

Or as many Arabs put it, لا إله إلا الله.
It's terrible writing, used to obfuscate the fact that the authors actually have nothing to say.

RatGuy

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 341
  • Rats, Books, and Board Games
Re: Facts for evidence based discussions
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2019, 07:25:16 AM »
So let me revisit a topic I brought up last fall, namely does anyone have any concise links to places that list serious facts exposing the various Trump scandals, AND exposing the various lies and conspiracy propaganda that many Trumpites have bathed themselves in and largely accepted.  In case anyone wonders, it is true that I just returned from an all day church outing and, ahem, I was again gobsmacked by the, well, ahh, err, resolute inability to consider that the propaganda based talking points and programed worldview that I... Well you get the idea.

+1 to Nebo113. Besides, there's plenty to suggest that even faced with "true facts," the human brain rejects anything that compromises core values or established worldview. We double-down, regardless of political affiliation. Indeed, the vaccine example is a good one that cuts across political lines; anti-vaxxers (and I'm definitely adding the anti-HPV-vaxxers in this) become more convinced in the face of science. Such defensive thinking only increases with education level and news consumption.

ex_mo

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • CHE Posts: 2423
Re: Facts for evidence based discussions
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2019, 11:31:44 AM »
So let me revisit a topic I brought up last fall, namely does anyone have any concise links to places that list serious facts exposing the various Trump scandals, AND exposing the various lies and conspiracy propaganda that many Trumpites have bathed themselves in and largely accepted.  In case anyone wonders, it is true that I just returned from an all day church outing and, ahem, I was again gobsmacked by the, well, ahh, err, resolute inability to consider that the propaganda based talking points and programed worldview that I... Well you get the idea.

+1 to Nebo113. Besides, there's plenty to suggest that even faced with "true facts," the human brain rejects anything that compromises core values or established worldview. We double-down, regardless of political affiliation. Indeed, the vaccine example is a good one that cuts across political lines; anti-vaxxers (and I'm definitely adding the anti-HPV-vaxxers in this) become more convinced in the face of science. Such defensive thinking only increases with education level and news consumption.

cf. The Backfire Effect

You might consider listening to this podcast series: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

kaysixteen

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
Re: Facts for evidence based discussions
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2019, 06:17:24 PM »
Sadly, what nebo and ratguy said is pretty much spot on.  I will listen to the suggested podcasts and YouTube videos mentioned here, but I ain't the guy who needs to do so, really.  I did try to mention things like confirmation bias, but after 24 hours I am even less sanguine about this task with these my fellow churh folks, having rehashed in my mind just how ignorant and broken record like stuck in the same thought patterns the folks I observed yesterday are.  I really don't know what to do about this basic underlying problem, like it or not.

ex_mo

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • CHE Posts: 2423
Re: Facts for evidence based discussions
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2019, 07:23:34 PM »
Sadly, what nebo and ratguy said is pretty much spot on.  I will listen to the suggested podcasts and YouTube videos mentioned here, but I ain't the guy who needs to do so, really.  I did try to mention things like confirmation bias, but after 24 hours I am even less sanguine about this task with these my fellow churh folks, having rehashed in my mind just how ignorant and broken record like stuck in the same thought patterns the folks I observed yesterday are.  I really don't know what to do about this basic underlying problem, like it or not.

The point is, there’s not much you or I or anyone else can do to change other people’s minds. Throwing data at them doesn’t work, sadly. People have to be emotionally connected to their “facts” for them to believe them to be true. The worst thing you can do, probably, is constantly try to disprove people’s beliefs with your facts and data. It’s faith. It is felt in the heart, not known in the mind.

clean

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
  • CHE Posts: 5416
Re: Facts for evidence based discussions
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2019, 07:40:36 PM »
Im not a fan of the current administration. However, I hope that we are equally skeptical of the presenters of the 'facts'. 
On July 12,  2015 (on the other forum) I posted this:
Quote
This morning I was recorded Meet the Press, which I play in the background as I read the Sunday paper (or work the big Soduko puzzle).  After an 'expose' on Trump, Doris Kearns Goodman (about 26 minutes to the show said), "We as journalists, have the responsibility to figure out which candidates are likely to be our leaders. I remember talking to Tim (or Jim) Russert about this.  Rather than who has the most money, who is saying the most outrageous things, who has the highest polls. Who is likely to be a leader?  They have shown qualities already."

She then says about Trump, "This guy has shown qualities, I cannot imagine him as a presidential leader". 

The host, Cuck Todd, then jumps in with, "No, I don't think anybody can.  I think the question is when does this "act" implode?"

Im not a Trump fan. Frankly, I am the model of the rationally ignorant voter.  There are too many out there, and there are many primaries to go before my state votes.  However, I am disturbed with the "responsibility" that these journalists espouse... that it is their place to determine who is likely to be a leader.  Isnt their place to Report the Truth or facts, rather than shape the truth? 

...

I guess that the question that I have is who can one trust?  Certainly not Trump, but no one has taken Walter Cronkite's place in the press  as the most trusted man either. 
Whether it is the 'faux news network' or the 'Clinton news network' or all of the others in between, it seems that the 'facts' are in flux and negotiable. 

In the end, I hope that this thread doesnt devolve into solely a Trump bashing place, but a place to question 'the facts' from all candidates seeking office this cycle. 

(Either way, though, Im not likely to spend much time here, so feel free to ignore me).

And to expand on what Ex_mo posted,
"A person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still,"  Dale Carnegie
"The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am"  Darth Vader

octoprof

  • Multi-lingual, multi-limbed
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 125
  • Love, live, care, and be kind... now. Right now.
  • CHE Posts: lots
Re: Facts for evidence based discussions
« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2019, 08:12:16 AM »
Too many folks have no interest in facts, especially if those facts do not confirm what they already thing. It's very sad. I don't know how to fix this, either.

Welcome your cephalopod overlord.

pigou

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
Re: Facts for evidence based discussions
« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2019, 09:33:28 AM »
Too many folks have no interest in facts, especially if those facts do not confirm what they already thing. It's very sad. I don't know how to fix this, either.
And something that isn't remotely limited to Trump supporters.

An example of this was one of the early pictures showing the abhorrent conditions in the immigrant detention centers... that just happened to be taken years ago during President Obama's term. That is, a lot of practices that are now (rightly!) called out for being abhorrent were entirely ignored when one's own party was in control.

Let's also not forget Guantanamo Bay, that Obama wanted to shut down and couldn't get through a Congress controlled by Democrats. People there have been detained for nearly 20 years now and, at least initially were subjected to torture (who knows what their condition is now: they, presumably, have no more timely intelligence to offer).