Bias, or just fact?

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby charon on November 20th, 2020, 4:06 pm 

When I said 'The moon is a fact' I meant the existence of the moon is a fact. It's implied, it doesn't need to be spelled out.

That complies with the first M-W definition - 'something that has actual existence' - and the second - 'a piece of information presented as having objective reality' - and probably the third - ' the quality of being actual '.

I see M-W gives the antonym of fact as unreality. So apparently the (existence of the) moon in philosophical land is unreal.

Nice, really intelligent. How to confuse anybody.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2511
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby mtbturtle on November 20th, 2020, 7:34 pm 

charon » Fri Nov 20, 2020 3:06 pm wrote:When I said 'The moon is a fact' I meant the existence of the moon is a fact. It's implied, it doesn't need to be spelled out.

That complies with the first M-W definition - 'something that has actual existence' - and the second - 'a piece of information presented as having objective reality' - and probably the third - ' the quality of being actual '.

I see M-W gives the antonym of fact as unreality. So apparently the (existence of the) moon in philosophical land is unreal.

Nice, really intelligent. How to confuse anybody.


I'm not nice I'm not intelligent and I often confuse everybody.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Resident Member
 
Posts: 9575
Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin US


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby mtbturtle on November 20th, 2020, 7:44 pm 

Least anybody think FACTS are unproblematic, straightforward or easily settled with science, or can be resolved by a superficial appeal to Websters, given this is a philosophy forum I recommend introducing yourself to SEP Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy first entry for "Fact" Facts

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/


First published Fri Sep 21, 2007; substantive revision Fri Oct 16, 2020

Facts, philosophers like to say, are opposed to theories and to values (cf. Rundle 1993) and are to be distinguished from things, in particular from complex objects, complexes and wholes, and from relations. They are the objects of certain mental states and acts, they make truth-bearers true and correspond to truths, they are part of the furniture of the world. Not only do philosophers oppose facts to theories and to values, they sometimes distinguish between facts which are brute and those which are not (Anscombe 1958). We present and discuss some philosophical and formal accounts of facts.



See ya next week :)
User avatar
mtbturtle
Resident Member
 
Posts: 9575
Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin US
TheVat liked this post


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby charon on November 20th, 2020, 8:00 pm 

I'm not nice I'm not intelligent and I often confuse everybody.


Evidently.

Perhaps, when you return next week, you could explain why, in philosophy land, things are not facts. Seeing as they actually exist, that is.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2511
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby TheVat on November 20th, 2020, 10:14 pm 

Have heard them called "the furniture of the world" before, and I love that description. Our internal model of the world is indeed built from facts -- as Wittgenstein tried to show in Tractatus. He believed these facts were contingent, that is to say, that they were not analytic (like, say, "triangles all have three sides") and had the possibility of being either true or false depending on circumstances. My cat has fleas.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7814
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby mtbturtle on November 21st, 2020, 1:51 am 

charon » Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:00 pm wrote:
I'm not nice I'm not intelligent and I often confuse everybody.


Evidently.

Perhaps, when you return next week, you could explain why, in philosophy land, things are not facts. Seeing as they actually exist, that is.

read the SEP and then you can explain it to us all.

tell me do you know?

As I said facts are ABOUT reality they are not things.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Resident Member
 
Posts: 9575
Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin US


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby BadgerJelly on November 21st, 2020, 2:33 am 

Mturtle -

The foe button works just fine. More people using it lead to thread not being derailed.

I found the consciousness thread to have possibly been going somewhere (for a change) but it was locked - probably due to nonsense spouted by someone I suspect?

Just saying. Have fun :)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5739
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
charon liked this post


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby charon on November 21st, 2020, 4:23 am 

It's always a good sign when a poster starts following you around making personal remarks. It means they're wrong... but trying desperately to be right.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2511
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby charon on November 21st, 2020, 5:05 am 

The word fact comes from the French 'fait', the past participle of the verb 'faire', to do or make. So fait means done, or made. Un fait is also the French word for fact.

So the word fact means something that has actually happened, or that is true, or that exists. This post is a fact because it has been done, or made, and exists. It's a fact that it rained yesterday where I live. It's a fact that bananas are yellow... etc, etc.

What is not a fact is something that does not exist, or does not yet exist, or has never existed. It gets complicated because of sense and language. One could say that Humpty Dumpty is a fact but actually he exists only as a nursery rhyme character, not in real life. Only representations of him exist in real life. Representations of Humpty Dumpty are facts because they exist.

Bias is also a fact in the sense that it exists although it is not a thing.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2511
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby charon on November 21st, 2020, 7:03 am 

I'm tempted to digress a bit. I'm afraid it has nothing to do with bias but we can come back to bias afterwards, if Vat doesn't mind.

If you want something a bit more interesting than just 'what is a fact', consider thinking.

We all think, that's an indisputable fact. But what we think about may be real or unreal. If I think about the earth in space, both the earth and the thought of it are real. But if I think about pink unicorns then, whereas the thought is real, the content is not. Pink unicorns aren't real.

But is the content of a thought actually different from its content? Is thought a sort of vehicle upon which the content is imprinted? Or is the content the thought itself? Because if there's no content is there the thought? And vice versa, of course.

So, if a thought and its content are one and the same, which they are, and I think about pink unicorns, are those thoughts real?

The conundrum is that although the content of a thought and the thought itself are one and the same - because if one disappears so does the other - the fact is one is a reality and the other isn't.

It means that, although thought is real as a fact, whatever we think about isn't, even if it exists as a reality outside thought.

It's one of those things :-)
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2511
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby edy420 on November 21st, 2020, 2:43 pm 

charon » 21 Nov 2020, 02:14 wrote:You can add background information providing it's factual and true.

Reasons are the same. They can be factual too. If I burn my hand and say it was because I put it in a flame, both the burn and the reason are factual if they are true. You can prove the burn because it's on my hand but you may not be able to prove the reason. It may be in the past and gone.

The problem with the media and politicians, etc, is that they give reasons which may not be true. Then someone else comes along with a different reason and claims their one is true, not the other one.

It's a crazy world where nobody really knows what is true and what isn't. That's when belief starts, you have to choose which reason you want to believe. Then there's fighting and disagreement between people who believe different things.

This is why we should stick to facts and not go beyond them.


Tucker would say you did it because your a moron. Don Lemon would cry, because Trump made you do it...
Maybe you were angry. Perhaps you like pain.

Any one of these could be true. Maybe your a moron who burnt their hand because Trump made you angry, and you like pain. Meaning it's all factually true. But it's still bias information.

The only unbias fact, is that your hand is burnt.

My biggest issue is now Fox viewers think of you as a moron, and others have another reason to hate Trump. Sheeple are easily influenced.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby charon on November 21st, 2020, 3:16 pm 

Meaning it's all factually true. But it's still bias information.


Not all truths are necessarily pleasant. If information is provided that only picks out the bad truths and leaves out the good ones then that is misinformation. But it's very rarely that we see the whole picture of anything.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2511
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby TheVat on November 21st, 2020, 5:45 pm 

The mission of professional journalism (not be confused with infotainment and social media "clickbait") is to provide that set of facts which are relevant and thus provide an accurate picture of some state of affairs in the external world. It is the exclusion of key facts (often seen in cherry-picking, a term everyone here should be very familiar with) which often makes for propaganda or spin.

Often, the challenge is to obtain all the relevant facts when public officials stonewall, obfuscate, fabricate, or just change the subject at a press conference. This is why many countries have tried to pass specific laws that mandate some degree of transparency in the operations of governments. It's a huge challenge, because those most interested in personal power and self-dealing are often well-practiced in the arts of deception and concealment.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7814
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
mtbturtleSerpent liked this post


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby edy420 on November 21st, 2020, 8:24 pm 

Professional journalism is governed by ratings. In other words, information is fuelled by ego.

The most recent example is the new "right wing" media network, Newsmax. I had my hopes up, thinking they would have a Conservative foundation, and therefor be Conservative in their journalism. Ie "professional" journalists. Instead, they are the counter media, to left wing media. Drama, reality TV, and heavily bias.

There is no unbias centralist media. There is only left wing, or right wing. I hoped Newsmax would help bring balance, but it only creates a safe space for brain dead right wing zombies, who need activists to think for them. The network may not be designed to divide the country further, but it will create more division by design. Because right wing viewers now have a new source for their echo chamber.

Which networks are centralist. I would think they qualify as professional.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby Serpent on November 21st, 2020, 10:48 pm 

I watch PBS and CBC. They seem to present as many sides as they can find spokespeople for.
Of course, someone's definition of left and right, or even "wing" may be quite different from mine.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4320
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby mtbturtle on November 22nd, 2020, 7:56 pm 

edy420 » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:24 pm wrote:Professional journalism is governed by ratings. In other words, information is fuelled by ego.

The most recent example is the new "right wing" media network, Newsmax. I had my hopes up, thinking they would have a Conservative foundation, and therefor be Conservative in their journalism. Ie "professional" journalists. Instead, they are the counter media, to left wing media. Drama, reality TV, and heavily bias.

There is no unbias centralist media. There is only left wing, or right wing. I hoped Newsmax would help bring balance, but it only creates a safe space for brain dead right wing zombies, who need activists to think for them. The network may not be designed to divide the country further, but it will create more division by design. Because right wing viewers now have a new source for their echo chamber.

Which networks are centralist. I would think they qualify as professional.



Newsmax has long been a toxic right wing website so I wouldn't expect anything more from their tv show.

Not sure if it's been posted before but the following graphic might help with news sources are "centratists" . Why however is being centrist seen as unbaiased? They've interests they are protecting also.

Image
User avatar
mtbturtle
Resident Member
 
Posts: 9575
Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin US
Serpent liked this post


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby BadgerJelly on November 29th, 2020, 2:19 am 

Truths cannot be experienced. Facts can be experienced. Experiences differ. Therefore, experience is subject to bias where truths are never subjected to biases - truths are just plain logical truths.

Language and communication often mixes truths with facts, and that is why some biases linger more than others (they are ‘facts’ perceived as ‘truths’). Add to this ‘scientific facts’ and it gets even more muddled as the term ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ seem more aligned in such circles of scientific thought.

Bias is also a highly relative subject matter. A more clear cut differentiation between ‘preference’ and ‘bias’ may be a useful route to tread (as well as ‘influence’ and ‘manipulation’).
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5739
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Previous

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests