What makes a fact a fact?

[chuk_77]

People post news clips as fact but others disagree depending on who owns the paper

People quote TV and the "facts" are argued because media is bias

People post you tube videos and people argue its not fact

So, what does make a fact, a fact? How does it go from an opinion to an absolute fact? 

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

A fact is something that has been verified by reputable sources or has been tested to reach the same conclusion by many.

Fact is not something true simply because it has been repeated over and over. A good example is the 'autism is caused by vaccination' argument.

An opinion is also not a fact. For example, Andrew Bolt writes a blog. Generally that is his opinion. Just because his opinion has made it into the newspaper does not make it a fact. A good example of this is his 'opinion' that indigenous people that appear white are not indigenous.

---

My opinion is white indigenous people who are not discriminated against should not get any special benefits. 

Who's to say what's reputable sources? And who is to say a source is more popular is also a fact. 

---

I was using the indigenous case as an example to explain that just because it is written down does not make it a fact.

Defining a reputable source is generally fairly straight forward. I used the autism example because it is a good one.

On first appearance it looks reputable - a doctor undertakes a study and his results link autism with vaccination. The study is reported in Lancet. The media link the 2 elements (a doctor and Lancet) so the assumption is made that his research must be fact. The anti vaccination lobby relies heavily on Wakefields findings and 20 years on there is literature galore linking autism with vaccination.

But Wakefield was being paid to come up with his results and falsified his research. If the Lancet had looked at who paid for the research they would have been less likely to give Wakefield the time of day.

However, in 20 years since Wakefield the link appears to be a 'fact' because it has been repeated so many times in the various media and in academic books.

But all you have to do to discover whether it is true or not is to work through all the sources backwards. Invariable they all lead to Wakefield.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@nevynreally wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

An opinion is also not a fact. For example, Andrew Bolt writes a blog. Generally that is his opinion. Just because his opinion has made it into the newspaper does not make it a fact. A good example of this is his 'opinion' that indigenous people that appear white are not indigenous.

---

Sue me precious. Are you claiming being indigenous for benefits, or  because you are proud of your heritage?

No money in mine, proud of it though.

---

I have no idea what that means.

[nevynreally]

I have no idea what yours means either.

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

A fact is something that has been verified by reputable sources or has been tested to reach the same conclusion by many.

Fact is not something true simply because it has been repeated over and over. A good example is the 'autism is caused by vaccination' argument.

An opinion is also not a fact. For example, Andrew Bolt writes a blog. Generally that is his opinion. Just because his opinion has made it into the newspaper does not make it a fact. A good example of this is his 'opinion' that indigenous people that appear white are not indigenous.

---

My opinion is white indigenous people who are not discriminated against should not get any special benefits. 

Who's to say what's reputable sources? And who is to say a source is more popular is also a fact. 

---

I was using the indigenous case as an example to explain that just because it is written down does not make it a fact.

Defining a reputable source is generally fairly straight forward. I used the autism example because it is a good one.

On first appearance it looks reputable - a doctor undertakes a study and his results link autism with vaccination. The study is reported in Lancet. The media link the 2 elements (a doctor and Lancet) so the assumption is made that his research must be fact. The anti vaccination lobby relies heavily on Wakefields findings and 20 years on there is literature galore linking autism with vaccination.

But Wakefield was being paid to come up with his results and falsified his research. If the Lancet had looked at who paid for the research they would have been less likely to give Wakefield the time of day.

However, in 20 years since Wakefield the link appears to be a 'fact' because it has been repeated so many times in the various media and in academic books.

But all you have to do to discover whether it is true or not is to work through all the sources backwards. Invariable they all lead to Wakefield.

---

You're talking Gibberish today. 

[imastawka]

So many people channelling joanie..........

[lionrose.7]

I am going to take ther blue pill and go to bed 🙂 no Rabbit holes I hopity hope

[chuk_77]

interesting. So when people ask for the facts here, they can all be argued as not fact depending where your opinion lies?

[chuk_77]

😮 not me

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@nevynreally wrote:

I have no idea what yours means either.

---

Obviously not.

[nevynreally]

---

@imastawka wrote:

So many people channelling joanie..........

I find that rude and insulting. I don't agree with most of what joanie posts. But they have the right to. Comparing one poster to another is just rude. Don't have a response. Use a putdown.

And people wonder why this forum is dead.