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: 2787
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: 9104
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: 9104
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: 2787
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: 7875
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: 9104
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: 5757
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: 2787
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: 2787
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: 2787
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: 1439
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: 2787
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: 7875
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: 1439
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: 4611
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: 9104
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: 5757
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby edy420 on December 4th, 2020, 4:35 pm 

The election coverage is the best example of media bias right now. If the media you watch, is joking about evidence fraud, then it's probably left wing.

I've watched hours of evidence. Afridavits and video of physical discrepancies. I care not name any of them, because this is one of those websites that censors information. Left wing News media make jokes or don't cover it. Social media and SCF are willing to hide it.

The problem is that half of America watches the "non-credible" news media. They have information that would fuel them to fight with guns. Or vice versa, if Trump does overturn the election, the other half of America are willing to riot.

Basically, news media have created two opposing churches. The power of bias.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby Serpent on December 4th, 2020, 5:10 pm 

edy420 » December 4th, 2020, 3:35 pm wrote:... Left wing News media make jokes or don't cover it.

If this is a joke, it's a very sick one. The outlets I watch report the trumped-up claims as "unsubstantiated" or "unsupported" - very much like the American courts, who don't appear to have been convinced by the hours of 'evidence' you watched. Very much like the election officials and governors. Are they all "left wing" - including the Republican ones?
If so, we maybe should consider redrawing the left-right divide.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4611
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby edy420 on December 4th, 2020, 10:28 pm 

Serpent » 05 Dec 2020, 10:10 wrote:
edy420 » December 4th, 2020, 3:35 pm wrote:... Left wing News media make jokes or don't cover it.

The outlets I watch report the trumped-up claims as "unsubstantiated" or "unsupported" - very much like the American courts, who don't appear to have been convinced by the hours of 'evidence' you watched.


Exactly what I'm talking about. The courts might not be convinced, but the Trump supporters are, Ie. half the country. All thanks to media bias.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby Serpent on December 4th, 2020, 11:18 pm 

edy420 » December 4th, 2020, 9:28 pm wrote:Exactly what I'm talking about. The courts might not be convinced, but the Trump supporters are, Ie. half the country. All thanks to media bias.

It's not half the country, though they would like to think so.
And you might consider, too, drawing a line between bias and outright lies.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4611
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby toucana on December 5th, 2020, 8:22 am 

According to this WP article from February this year, there are now actually more registered independent voters than there are registered Republican voters in the USA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/28/first-time-ever-there-are-fewer-registered-republicans-than-independents/

New data from Ballot Access News, which tracks registrations in the 31 states that require voters to register by party, shows that independents account for 29.09 percent of voters in them, compared with 28.87 percent for Republicans. As recently as 2004, Republicans outpaced independents by nearly 10 percentage points.

There are still way more registered Democrats; 39.66 percent of voters are registered with that party.

When Trump supporters claim that he has the ‘overwhelming support’ of Republicans, this may be rather less impressive than they imagine, assuming they really mean registered members of the party - 70% out of 28.87% of the electorate is actually rather underwhelming.

The hardcore MAGA support for Trump has never really changed very much either. It has never really dipped below 28% of the electorate since 2016, and has never risen much above 32%. Trump never managed to expand that fanatical core following into a wider coalition either, which is one major reason why he lost the 2020 election - just as he actually lost the plebiscite by 3 million votes in the 2016 election.

Most of the Trump administrations’s policies have been aimed at gingering up the racist and authoritarian prejudices of his overwhelmingly white and uneducated fanbase at his narcissistic rallies. Trump was always just ‘preaching to the converted’ at these rallies, a 28% minority of illiterate bigots and bobble-heads who would just nod along with whatever nonsense Trump happened to be babbling about on stage at any given moment - remember the ’hydrosonic missiles’ he was so proud about ?

These ralllies were so abysmal, and so chock-full of outright lies and dangerous misinformation about the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in particular, that virtually all the major TV networks stopped carrying them live. The one exception was Fox News which had tended to function as the propaganda wing of the GOP for the last four years - and even *they* stopped covering the later Trump rallies in detail towards the end of the campaign as the contents of Trump’s rhetoric became progressivley more deranged.

On the subject of ‘electoral fraud’
- The DOJ Attorney General William Barr has stated publicly that there was no such fraud
- Chris Krebs DHS head of cybersecurity and infrastructure said there was no such fraud.
- Judges have thrown out over 30 cases alleging fraud brought by Trump for lack of evidence.
- State Governors in Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania have all certified there was no fraud.

Incidentally, my favourite recent piece of video footage was a clip of Republican Arizona Governor Doug Ducey who very publicly declined to take a call from Trump, and sent it straight to voicemail as it came in while he was actually certifiying the Arizona election results.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE1flg_qqiE

Even the GOP governors have had enough of this BS it seems.

So who exactly says that ‘fraud’ took place ?
- President Donald Trump
- Rudy Giuliani (sometime Trump attorney)
- Jenna Ellis (sometime Trump attorney
- Sidney Powell (sometime Trump attorney)
- Kayleigh McEnany (WH press secretary)
- Lou Dobbs (Fox Business conspiracy theorist )
- Sean Hannity (Fox TV conspiracy theorist)
All of these are proven wall-to-wall liars, psychotic conspiracy theorists and delusional laughing stocks.
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1987
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (10)
Serpent liked this post


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby charon on December 5th, 2020, 10:35 am 

So why doesn't someone invoke the Mental Health Act? Because he hasn't killed anybody?

But he has, he's doubtless hastened the death of several hundred thousand through inaction on Covid. If he can make people believe in hydrosonic missiles and election fraud, he can make them believe the virus is coming to get them.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2787
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby Serpent on December 5th, 2020, 11:56 am 

charon » December 5th, 2020, 9:35 am wrote:But he has, he's doubtless hastened the death of several hundred thousand through inaction on Covid. If he can make people believe in hydrosonic missiles and election fraud, he can make them believe the virus is coming to get them.

Not to mention the deaths of a hundred thousand Kurds, the children he tossed over the Mexican border, and who knows how many, where and by what means through international action and inaction and his cozy transactions with despots.

So why doesn't someone invoke the Mental Health Act?

Like - who? Senate-on-a-leash? Family members who take in the money?
He was probably right when he famously said " "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters." Because his MAGA fans like the idea of shooting the people they disapprove of, for whatever reason; that would just show how tough he is.
(Just looking at him, they'd never guess how tough he is behind that phalanx of SS; he has to show&tell.)
Because it is the prerogative of heads of state to get common people killed. If they don't lose a decisive war, they never have to answer for the atrocities for which they are directly or indirectly responsible.
If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.
https://chomsky.info/1990____-2/
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4611
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby charon on December 5th, 2020, 1:49 pm 

I think my question was somewhat rhetorical. The nice men in white coats aren't going to take him away just yet. Besides, it's not that kind of insanity.

Actually, I'm rather bored with it all.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2787
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby edy420 on December 5th, 2020, 3:00 pm 

An interesting observation, the like to dislike ratio on YouTube is roughly the same, even when topics are depicted in polar opposites.

Ie. one news media states that oranges are bad for the country, an has 100k likes to 10k dislikes. I would then expect to see the ratio opposite of 100k dislikes, when another news media reports that oranges are good for the country. This is not the case.

Not only are the ratios roughly the same, but the total number are roughly the same too, which is why I think of news media as sources for echo Chambers. People are obviously only watching the media they like the most. Which is not a good idea when many are censoring or omitting information.

I have my reservations about the number of Trump supporters being small.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby Forest_Dump on December 5th, 2020, 3:27 pm 

I think the biggest danger in the world today, or at least the western world, is indeed the determination to ignore the attraction Trump has for tens of millions of people. In fact I think that within the next 5 years, denial of the following of Trump and the refusal to figure out the causes, could become far more dangerous than covid-19 denialism. Trump supporters compose a huge, determined (perhaps fanatical) percentage of the population who have demonstrated a capacity for violence and intimidation and often are very well armed. At this time, while I do not believe anyone should be above the law, going after Trump in any way physically would make a martyr of him to many millions of people. You first have to figure out what attracts people to him and find a better alternative.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8746
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby Serpent on December 5th, 2020, 4:00 pm 

Forest_Dump » December 5th, 2020, 2:27 pm wrote:I think the biggest danger in the world today, or at least the western world, is indeed the determination to ignore the attraction Trump has for tens of millions of people. In fact I think that within the next 5 years, denial of the following of Trump and the refusal to figure out the causes, could become far more dangerous than covid-19 denialism. Trump supporters compose a huge, determined (perhaps fanatical) percentage of the population who have demonstrated a capacity for violence and intimidation and often are very well armed. At this time, while I do not believe anyone should be above the law, going after Trump in any way physically would make a martyr of him to many millions of people. You first have to figure out what attracts people to him and find a better alternative.

That's relatively easy, except for the hard core that actively craves violent upheaval. For them, there is no acceptable alternative: somebody, sooner or later, will have to fight them, defeat them, disarm them and neutralize them. But first, the outer layers must be peeled away, through self-interest, persuasion by religious leaders, local influence - and attrition.
What's difficult is communicating the solution through the disinformation wall. Too much interest is vested in keeping them riled up. The hate-wear alone is a multi-million dollar industry; the fan gear is even more profitable, and what the arms dealers are making....!
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4611
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby charon on December 5th, 2020, 4:16 pm 

If he was a martyr it wouldn't last long, they'd just find someone else to follow.

But there's also the question of how much danger Biden's in. I'm serious.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2787
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Bias, or just fact?

Postby Serpent on December 5th, 2020, 5:11 pm 

charon » December 5th, 2020, 3:16 pm wrote:If he was a martyr it wouldn't last long, they'd just find someone else to follow.

But there's also the question of how much danger Biden's in. I'm serious.

You're not alone!
I actually think, the less brain-infarcted leadership would opt to take out Harris first, because she's even more of a threat. Then they'd have to wait for a more acceptable replacement VP... and by then, their whole operation will have been rolled up and installed in Gitmo. Well, at least, that's my favoured scenario of the moment.

Yes. Some action is to be expected. They might storm the inauguration or stage some other idiotic stunt. My best hope is that the security forces - who must be heartily fed up by now - I mean, imagine having to protect a raving unpredictable super-spreader! - are ahead of the game.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4611
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
charon liked this post


PreviousNext

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests