Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years, 10 months ago
    Be very wary of anyone who uses the argument, "but those are YOUR facts!" The word "fact" has been redefined to mean the latest propaganda statement from favored sources, and has little to do with what scientists and engineers think of as facts.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 10 months ago
      Absolutely correct to be very wary. When a person starts talking about “your” facts versus “my” facts, you are dealing with a mind who believes in the primacy of consciousness. Such a person has no regard for truth because truth can be whatever the individual wants it to be.

      "Objective" means: existence exists. That which exists, is whatever it is, independent of any perceiver. This is the proposition of the Primacy of Existence.

      "Subjective" means: existence depends upon a perceiver (consciousness) and does not exist independently. Stated differently, the function of brain (consciousness) is not to perceive what exists but to create existence and existence only exists in the mind of the perceiver. This is the proposition of the Primacy of Consciousness.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by VetteGuy 8 years, 10 months ago
      Agreed! I'm one of those engineers, and my definition of a "Fact" is very narrow indeed, and excludes most of what I see on tv, or the internet (except here in the Gulch, of course ;-)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 8 years, 10 months ago
    Ah, yes. Trying to plug the global warming narrative.

    I don't resist facts. I resist lies.

    Lies like, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick...to hide the decline."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 10 months ago
    Easy enough solution...send all progressive liberal greenies, the UN, Soros, Strong, the EPA and all other 'Global Warming' creatures to Mars. Call it an experiment! For those of you that haven't figured it out, Carbon is not the enemy, It is a life sustaining and planet protecting element in our atmosphere. It is the building block of life. These creatures refuse to look at natures cycles. They refuse to leave the data untouched, un-confounded. They have only a brain and no individual identity of which they only use to blame YOU for what they themselves created. Allow 'Conscious Human Value creators' to make us aware, the help us survive a cold climate shift into a new Maunder Minimum, a weakening magnetic shield and one inwhich our poles are moving at ever increasing rates. These will be the very same value creators they have prevented from solving some of the environmental problems their dysfunctional brains created in the first place. In Other words...step aside humanoid, Let us 'Humans' fix the problem.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 8 years, 10 months ago
    Interesting that he equates this condition to a "defect" in the auditory nerve.
    I guess that we are to believe what we are told and not to think about it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 10 months ago
    Fact resistant-humans is nothing more than a new label for what Festinger discovered and we now know as cognitive dissonance. The most difficult beliefs for people to examine are those beliefs which have been (1) held for a long time; (2) adopted before age of reason; and (3) most often repeated.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Stormi 8 years, 10 months ago
      You have nailed it. More and more cognitive dissonance is created by the indoctrination in public schools Hours of values clarification and group therapy, where academic should be. Yes, they are being trained to be fact-resistant.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ohiocrossroads 8 years, 10 months ago
    Yeah, OK, I read Borowitz's little screed.
    My reaction is, "my aren't you clever".
    This is the kind of thing that the author hopes that other liberals quote to insult their opponents in environmental debates. They are cute quotes, but are not even based on pseudo-science.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Flootus5 8 years, 10 months ago
    There is a particularly vicious strain of this threat to civilization in the form of scientists who are willing to alter facts to create a pseudofact. i.e global warming data sets and the most recent one I have been unwillingly subjected to - deliberate altering of data sets pertaining to sage grouse habitats in the Intermountain West.

    Yes, I will elaborate in a different and upcoming post. It doesn't belong in humor.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by MinorLiberator 8 years, 10 months ago
      I learned this in a liberal state college in the late 60's, before discovering AR and switching to a (relatively) better private university: I would guarantee that one of the primary guiding principles of virtually all of these types is: "The end justifies the means." It was implied, if not explicitly stated, in so many courses I took taught by liberals...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 8 years, 10 months ago
    I'm pretty resistant to opinions and predictions masquerading as facts. Seems to me that maybe the opposite of "fact-resistant" is "gullible".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 10 months ago
    This was really a good social piece, my perception is the guy was pointing to those evil idiots who do not believe in the state religion (which is always "fact based" and who do not comply with their priests and their prescriptios (like stop breathing and adding to CO2 etc). But it could easily be the other side of the coin and be talking about the same self serving idiots who mis-use "facts" to become their "truth". I liked it, good for a laugh.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by broskjold22 8 years, 10 months ago
    Facts are contextual. A clear example of this is how Rand uses "selfishness". For those who know her philosophy this equates to "rational self-interest" and an opposition to altruism. For those unfamiliar with her definition of egoism, ego can mean all manner of contemptible character traits. People fail to understand that context involves hierarchical concepts which taken in the appropriate order and sequence provide structure: "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows." What is earth without human beings? It would exist, but what value can it hold? It would have no discernible form, no objective law, no structure. Without objective principles to define good or bad, we would have no means to make any claim whatsoever. Fact-resistant humans are, properly speaking, the evaders. And their main evasion is the Marxist belief that human value is a zero sum game. But objective human values are the very foundation of the earth.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by VetteGuy 8 years, 10 months ago
      Not sure I understand your explanation of how facts are contextual. The closest thing to a fact I see in your post is "Rand uses the term 'selfishness' to mean 'rational self interest' ". This is a definition of terms, and those are clearly contextual (as the SCOTUS has displayed for us recently). An example of a Fact is: "the earth is roughly spherical". I don't see that as subject to context.

      Principles likewise may be subject to context, and indeed vary from person to person (one person may hold to "Christian Principles", another to "Objectivist Principles"). For a society to work smoothly, common ground is necessary, but agreement on ALL principles is impossible. Just look at the discussions in our fairly narrow "Objectivist Community"!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by broskjold22 8 years, 10 months ago
        "Any natural phenomenon, i.e., any event which occurs without human participation, is the metaphysically given, and could not have occurred differently or failed to occur; any phenomenon involving human action is the man-made, and could have been different. For example, a flood occurring in an uninhabited land, is the metaphysically given; a dam built to contain the flood water, is the man-made; if the builders miscalculate and the dam breaks, the disaster is metaphysical in its origin, but intensified by man in its consequences. To correct the situation, men must obey nature by studying the causes and potentialities of the flood, then command nature by building better flood controls." Thus, Facts, in your example, would be the metaphysically given. Am I correct? A man-made fact "gay marriage is legal in the United States" is true. If SCOTUS were to reverse its ruling the fact would remain that "gay marriage was legal in the United States from 2015 to 2025", for example. The fact we are referring to remains absolute, you are correct in that. But it remains absolute contextually. Meaning in the scheme mentioned it would be a fact to say "gay marriage is legal in the United States" in 2016 but not in 2026. There is a great example of this regarding blood type. "Blood type A is compatible with blood type A". A fact, contextually, because we didn't know about RH factors. Now we know "Blood type A is compatible with blood type A when the RH factors are matched".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by broskjold22 8 years, 10 months ago
          "Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics." Thus I must admit I have confused facts and concepts. Facts would pertain to existence. Concepts to existence and consciousness. Concepts then would be contextual, while facts remain independent of the consciousness perceiving them. Thanks for catching that, VetteGuy.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by VetteGuy 8 years, 10 months ago
          Ah, I think I understand better now. I would state it differently perhaps.

          The way I consider facts, the Fact would be: "Homosexual marriage was made legal by the SCOTUS in 2015". This fact will not change if the court eventually decides otherwise - there will just be an additional fact. There may then be additional facts that have bearing on the issue, but the fact itself does not become less "factual". In your example, to state "gay marriage is legal" is a fact after the law goes into effect. Before that time, it is not just out of context, it is not factual. As an engineer, I was trained in carefully stating problems, so that appropriate solutions can be obtained. It occurs to me that carefully stating facts may be as important. A "sloppily" stated fact may, in fact, NOT be a fact at all, but an opinion, a projection, or an assumption.

          In you blood type example, the Fact is: "type A+ is compatible with type A+". Humans may not have been AWARE of the fact until blood typing and RH factors were discovered, but the compatibility (fact) did not change, only our understanding of the fact.

          I don't consider whether facts are "metaphysically given" (naturally occurring) or man made. In both cases I present, there are facts, human in the SCOTUS case, and naturally occurring in the blood type case.

          BTW, thanks for the discussion. I'm enjoying it.
          VG
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by broskjold22 8 years, 10 months ago
            VG, yes same here. I was also trained as an engineer. I think you are after the facts and I think I understand your point. A is A. Metaphysically given or man made. I also appreciate the precision used in the Fact examples above. After this discussion, I would revise my original comment to be:

            Concepts are contextual. A clear example of this is how Rand uses the concept "selfishness". For those who know her philosophy, this equates to "rational self-interest" and an opposition to altruism. People may fail to understand that context is important when defining hierarchical concepts which taken in the appropriate order and sequence provide structure: "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows." That is, reason implies egoism, egoism implies capitalism.

            Facts, when properly integrated by a volitional consciousness into concepts, are properly reduced to definitions. Knowledge, or the sum of the properly integrated concepts of an individual, is contextual. Facts remain what they are.

            Much appreciated, VG, as an engineer and creator of wealth I must add: "the gold is yours".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 10 months ago
    18 So was my ex wife when the Judge told her to pay me for half the value of the house. Recognizing a factual situation I prepared to duck behind the table.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 8 years, 10 months ago
    And right along the lines of a bumper sticker I saw years ago (probably not a liberal driving though): "God said it, I believe it, That settles it".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 10 months ago
      Liberal version: "O said it, I believe it. That settles it."
      Alternate: "Clinton redefined it. I believe it. Quick, send it to the dry cleaners."
      GOP version: "Lincoln said it. Just believe it. Don't even think about it."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo