Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lot of stuff can indeed be verified quite easily. I can look up the capital of any country. I can look up the distance between two points on earth, and I can look up the temperature yesterday afternoon in just about any location with a weather station. Some things are indeed pretty obviously factual and beyond dispute.
But I somehow suspect that's not quite what OP of this thread is talking about. As they're not exactly forthcoming in articulating exactly what they mean, it's difficult to ascertain. But I do have a general piece of advice - if something is disputed and argued about by large groups of people, chances are the situation isn't quite as clear as you feel it is. It's a complex world.
A lot of stuff can indeed be verified quite easily. I can look up the capital of any country. I can look up the distance between two points on earth, and I can look up the temperature yesterday afternoon in just about any location with a weather station. Some things are indeed pretty obviously factual and beyond dispute.
But I somehow suspect that's not quite what OP of this thread is talking about. As they're not exactly forthcoming in articulating exactly what they mean, it's difficult to ascertain. But I do have a general piece of advice - if something is disputed and argued about by large groups of people, chances are the situation isn't quite as clear as you feel it is. It's a complex world.
I'm referring to anything that has credible (peer reviewed) research and data behind it to back it.
Claim: The Earth is flat.
Rebuttal: Well, no, and here is all the scientific evidence (physics, photographic, etc.) that refutes this.
Or as another "everyday" example, those who lie about having worked somewhere, went to school somewhere, or served in the military somewhere. BS artists have always lived amongst us, spouting off mythical stories about something they once participated in. And once upon a time, it might have been difficult to ascertain some of this information. But with electronic record keeping and access to information at our fingertips, it's much easier to verify this type of information. Yet, we still find lots of people telling bold faced lies about these things.
Because even "verified facts" can be cherrypicked, biased, outdated, changed, influenced, fluid, or out of context.
People used to think COVID came from animals, now it's widely accepted it came from a lab leak.
'Widely accepted' is a mischaracterization that could be rectified by twenty seconds' worth of Googling...which is precisely the phenomenon that the OP is marveling about:
The jury is still out. Zoonotic viruses (those that 'spill over' from wildlife to humans) are very prevalent, with myriad examples in existence (it was the desire of some Cameroonian hunter(s) to eat a chimpanzee that gifted the (human) world with HIV/AIDS!) , and I'd say the rational assumption with regards to Covid is 'zoonotic until proven otherwise.' I'm not denying that it'd be entirely possible for it to have been a lab leak, however, given the proximity of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the risky gain-of-function viral research that was being performed there. I wish I could assign probabilities to/set odds for the likelihood of either 'origin story' being correct, but I don't think I'm in position to do so with the information I have (despite it being over three years after the initial outbreak).
I assume you formed your conclusions from a WSJ article I saw on my Google results...lots of people prefer to listen only to their preferred sources. Confirmation bias is rampant and incredibly problematic for our species.
Most of my Google searches tend to be me trying to confirm something I think I know or remember. It's easy to stop looking after you get the answer you want.
I notice this quite a bit, and especially with older people. I think they lived during a period when you could easily BS your way through life and it was hard to verify facts in a pinch. But today, so much information is easily accessible and can be found in 2 minutes! Even when corrected with links and evidence proving the contrary, so many of them double down instead of taking a step back, re-evaluating their previously held views, and admitting ignorance. Why is there not more shame and embarrassment from this behavior?
I see it equally with younger people. IME, "older people" (I guess you'd include me here, as I'm 70) grew up when in order to verify "facts" you had to do research in a library.
Younger people (and presumably older people who know how to the use the Internet) can, as you say, find "information ... in 2 minutes" online. But are they finding facts? Or just crap posted by who-knows-whom?
A lot of people of all ages have never been taught how to do research, how to verify their sources, and how to proofread their own notes in order to make sure they themselves are not passing on incorrect information. A lot of people -- even back when I was in college -- had never had to research and write a term paper in high school. If a person is never taught how to do research, or taught how to verify the sources they do research, how will they know how to check their "facts"?
Why is there not more shame and embarrassment?
Do you enjoy being caught out, shamed, and embarrassed? Do you think anyone does?
Some people just seem to denigrate any sort of "book learning."
There are FACTS and there are interpretations. Interpretations are often fluid, and when things are fluid there are no real FACTS yet. Only in hindsite can some facts be established, and that's only if information isn't withheld for whatever reason.
I notice this quite a bit, and especially with older people. I think they lived during a period when you could easily BS your way through life and it was hard to verify facts in a pinch. But today, so much information is easily accessible and can be found in 2 minutes! Even when corrected with links and evidence proving the contrary, so many of them double down instead of taking a step back, re-evaluating their previously held views, and admitting ignorance. Why is there not more shame and embarrassment from this behavior?
You are asking for a rational reason from humans as to why humans can be irrational. I'm not sure it works that way. Your question could be traced back in some ways to Nietzsche and nihilism coming up against "the church." The latter said "faith is stronger than anything," the nihilists said it was all meaningless. To their credit, many said "OK, if your dogma is real, prove what you believe!"
There is a valid schism in everyone. There is a personal or perceived reality, and there is an external reality that can at times be at odds with the personal reality.
A red/green color blind person comes to a traffic light that has an unusual configuration and goes through it. He is stopped by a cop "Didn't you see the light was red?" He is confused and says "To me it looked green!" BOTH are correct, within their personal realities. Objectively, a scientist might come and do a spectrum analysis and say that the light was actually a combination of X and Y wavelengths in the generally recognized blue area of the spectrum. HIS reality would also be "factual." A judge might recognize the red/green color blindness, the configuration of the light, and state that "For the defendant, the assumption was the light was green and I cannot fault that or disagree with his perception. Case dismissed." His reality is another take on "objective" reality.
There is conflicting information in this example, created by variations of perception, variations of "how do I react?", and variations in backgrounds. All this assumes those involved are "sane" and in full control of their mental faculties. Sometimes humans are not.
For some people, "objective" reality is too difficult. If you were given a choice between losing all of your closest friends or stating that the world was flat, which do you think would have greater impact on your day to day life? You can live blissfully stating the world is flat and function within it reasonably well if no one challenges you. You lose your closest friends and you are adrift in an unfamiliar and threatening place.
Where I suspect you may be going is into politics or religion. Those are simply not rational, have too many influencers, too many lies, too much manipulation of language and rhetoric for those within the thralls to be snapped into a different mindset and worldview.
When push comes to shove, "objective" reality (the reality of physics and conservation of mass, etc.) will win out over personal realities. "That train will not hit me walking down the tracks because it isn't rea... SPLATTT!"
None of us is completely in synch with "objective" reality. We each have our pet theories, idiosyncrasies, and fantasies. THAT... is an objective reality.
Our society promotes a certain amount of denial of reality. Can you imagine a child who might not be the brightest crayola in the box hearing on the news that NORAD and NASA are tracking Santa as he hands out presents? Just how gullible might that child be when it grows up, after being lied to by parents, teachers, the government and others who are authority figures?
Each person has their own journey through life. Everyone is at different stages of their journey. Their reality IS the journey.
People just pretty much want to believe what they want to believe, and facts don't matter much these days. And they don't want to give an inch to the any opposing side, so even if they know the truth, they will never admit it.
This is a cop out. While I agree that data can be skewed, or information can evolve over time as it did with COVID, most of the time the facts are as stated by whichever scholarly source published them. Believing in the idea that facts are fluid or ambiguous sets up liars nicely with a foundation that "nothing is real" and you shouldn't believe anything (other than what I tell you).
Really not so straightforward - even scholarly articles can and do have a bias and often look to fit the data to a belief or theory rather than follow what the data actually says.
COVID is a perfect example - COVID didn't evolve to an answer - there were many lies told by the officials and was in scholarly articles. The reality was that the lab was always the most likely source and those that said it was from a pandolin, I believe, were just forwarding the bad info. Then there was Twitter and others banning those that had it right and even doctors were threatened with losing their license for stating the data on vaccines.
There was a "study" that looked at the impact of plastic straws on the environment that came up with the figure of 500M straws per day used in the US - that really came from a 9 year olds project.
Another is the oft stated statistic that some 97% of studies support global warming - Ill give you hint, it was not what the data says - the study threw out 66.4% of the papers on climate, all of the ones that said they could find no evidence of AGW - talk about confirmation bias.
Or Schumer that had proof of Trump / Russia collusion that has been proven to not exist.
The reality is that few things are really so black and white to be able to call something absolutely verified.
People just pretty much want to believe what they want to believe, and facts don't matter much these days. And they don't want to give an inch to the any opposing side, so even if they know the truth, they will never admit it.
It's kind of arrogant, or perhaps it's weakness, to dismiss information just because one doesn't like it. You can tell because they get emotionally upset, often quite angry, when their viewpoints are challenged.
I like to look at all the information available then form a conclusion. Sometimes the areas are still too gray to form a firm opinion.
It is hard to get along with closed minded people who refuse to think and engage.
As far as those who blatantly lie about themselves, they are just hoping to slide by and that no one will check their credentials. If the proof is irrefutable and they keep lying, they might be narcissists or have some type of mental issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
