--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are opinions an there are reseach-based findings that are > testable by others.The latter can include personal research, aka > life > experience, working hypotheses, etc. None are ultimate truth in an > epistimological sense, but they tend towards being reliable -- some, > the more rigoursly reseached oned, very much so. Quantum mechanics > makes predictions accurate to 6o7 digits, I am told. > > An example, personal preference (I like republicans or I like > democrats) is an opinon and turrq's stories of contradiction may be > relevant in characterizing this and many other like opinions. > However, that some are not be able to distinguish between opinion > and research-based reliabile findings is interesting and a bit > dangerous. > > Stories > > "AIDS is a deadly sexually easily-transmitted disease. Its risk > can be sharply diminished by use of condoms and knowing ones > sexual partner(s) well." > > "AIDS is a conspiracy and hoax of the medical establishment and > is not sexually transmitted at all, and if I have sex with 100 > strangers without condoms, I will never get it." > > "Walking in front of an oncoming bus is very dangerous and can > be fatal." > > "Buses are just quantum soup, as am I. I can walk in front of an > oncoming bus, and our quantum soups will just pass through each > other. Besides I am wearing my magic gemstone and crystals, so I > am safe, I am invincible." > > "Going to work everyday brings in a paycheck with which I can pay > expenses and save some." > > "Going to work is a stupid con of THE MAN. Mother nature is cool, > she will provide me with everything I need as I lay here in the > park, just enjoying. Say, pass that doobie over here brother"
Cute stories, and good point. Although, I have met a few people for whom the last story seems to have *been* a fact. As Stephen King once said in one of his books, "God has a special provenance for babies, small children, and the terminally stoned." All 3 *sometimes* escape unscathed from circumstances that bring others down, including having no income. Think the Purusha guys who have managed to get other people to pay for their lives for years, although I'm not sure which of King's three categories they fall into. :-) That joke aside, there seems to me a strong difference between things that *clearly* fall into the realm of facts that can be determined using empirical methods and those that cannot, and should be more rightly classed in the realm of opinion. I think that most of us are capable of determining which is which, and of acting appropriately in the real world, most of the time. But here on FFL the distinc- tion often seems to be blurred. I'll agree that the first of the stories you told above probably deserves to be classed in the Fact column. The third does not because it isn't precise enough; you didn't say how far the walker was from the bus...if the bus is half a block away and there is a red light between you and the bus, chances are that walking in front of the oncoming bus *isn't* all that dangerous. As for the one about work bringing in a paycheck, tell that to the folks who've worked for companies that went bankrupt and stiffed them for their last month's wages. It's not *always* a fact. But let's get back to the stories *I* told earlier. I still think they're all Just Stories, and *don't* deserve to be classed as Fact. Do you disagree? Can you propose a set of empirical methods by which the truth of any of them can be determined to the point that they could be considered Facts? I'm not challeng- ing the gist of what you said; it deserved to be said. I'm just curious. Here they are again: "Maharishi is one of the greatest spiritual teachers the world has ever known. He is a living saint, fully enlightened, and thus incapable of doing anything that is not fully in accord with the laws of nature. There- fore anything that anyone says against him is false, and indicates that the person saying it is either deluded or has some malevolent intent towards this great saint. He's one of the world's 'good guys,' and anyone who speaks ill of him is a 'bad guy.'" "Maharishi is a con man who has systematically ripped off the gullible seekers who have followed him for decades. He promises them everything -- including enlightenment -- and delivers on almost nothing. And to protect himself he has created an autocracy that punishes any questioning of his authority or his essential 'right' to dictate to his followers what they should do and think with excommunication or worse (legal action should they violate the copy- rights he has taken out on common domain techniques and knowledge). He's a 'bad guy,' and anyone who tells the 'truth' about him (as defined above) is a 'good guy.'" "Global warming is a serious problem that threatens the future of humanity and the Earth, and those who attempt to diminish its importance are enemies of humanity." "Global warming is a scam perpetrated by 'scientists' who are in it for the money, and who are putting over one of the biggest frauds in history on their fellow human beings." "Polticians of the Republican/Democratic Party (pick one) are 'good guys' who have the welfare of the population as a whole in their hearts. Anyone who says something negative about them is doing so because they *oppose* the welfare of the population as a whole. Such people are liars and are not to be trusted." "Polticians of the Republican/Democratic Party (pick one) are 'bad guys' who have sold out to the interests of those who control them from behind the scenes. The only thing they care about is themselves, and putting more money and more power in their pockets. Anyone who says something negative about them is doing so because they *oppose* these self-interested actions, and are acting from a sense of heroism, 'protecting' the welfare of the population as a whole. Such people are heroes and are to be trusted implicitly because they *are* heroes." "I am 'right' because because the sources I have quoted to support my position are 'better' than yours." "You are 'wrong' because because the sources you have quoted to support your position are 'lesser' than mine." "My view of who I am and what I do and why I do it is 'correct' and yours is 'incorrect,' because I say so. No one could *possibly* believe the things you're saying about me, so the fact that you're saying them means that you are intentionally 'lying' about me." "Your view of who you am and what you do and why you do it is 'incorrect' and mine is 'correct,' because I say so. I *do* believe the things I'm saying about you, and you just can't handle the possibility that they're true."
