Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Ron Bailey looks at a new Yale study showing that most Americans believe they're entitled to their own opinions and their own facts.
|10.9.07 @ 3:30PM|#
Without reading the article, let's just say that my observation is that, for many people, opinions = facts.
|10.9.07 @ 3:37PM|#
The problem with "facts" is that there is no magical place to go and discover what is true and what's not. Isn't that question what most political debates are all about?
Mike Laursen|10.9.07 @ 3:40PM|#
It would be interesting to see a follow-up study of acceptance of facts as a function of time. My experience is that people are stubborn: they'll accept unwelcome facts only after an initial defensive reaction and some time for the facts to soak in. Pushing them only makes it worse.
Mike Laursen|10.9.07 @ 3:47PM|#
Isn't that question what most political debates are all
about?
If were talking about political debate in modern-day United States,
each of the two sides cherry picks the facts they like or simply
makes up facts. There's no attempt to agree on any facts.
x,y|10.9.07 @ 3:48PM|#
Dan T.,
Could you please rephrase your post? I'm not sure of the definition
of the following words:
1. The
2. problem
3. with
4. "
5. facts
6. is
7. that
8. there
9. no
10. magical
11. place
12. to
13. go
14. and
15. discover
16. what
17. true
18. '
19. s
20. not
21. .
22. Isn't
23. question
24. most
25. political
26. debates
27. are
28. all
29. about
30. ?
|10.9.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Well we all knew it would come to this sooner or later.
Ron Bailey is shilling for Big Truth.
|10.9.07 @ 4:14PM|#
[/sarcasm] All those epistimology and logic classes were a waste of time. Learning the difference between validity and soundness.....what the point? Fuck, I didn't know that validity was a function of the sexuality of the speaker. Sheesh, I guess it really does depend on what the defintion of "is" is. [/sarcasm]
|10.9.07 @ 4:33PM|#
Most people don't know the difference between opinion and fact,
nor do they care. Couple that with cognitive dissonance theory and
you have people accepting an opinion as fact and then become either
unwilling, or unable to change their opinion when they encounter
new information. Pretty much describes the 24 hour cable news
junkies on the left and right.
Critical thinking should be a mandatory Jr. High School class.
Asharak|10.9.07 @ 4:33PM|#
Well we all knew it would come to this sooner or
later.
Ron Bailey is shilling for Big Truth.
LoL.
But honestly, this is the first thing I've read from Bailey that
I've completely agreed with.
|10.9.07 @ 4:35PM|#
"the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about
disputed matters of fact to values that define their cultural
identities."
"Disputed" is an important word here. You hold a higher standard of
evidence for propositions you aren't inclined to believe. There's
no way around that. I'm fine with the standard of 'factdom' being
pretty high in all cases.
atrevete|10.9.07 @ 4:39PM|#
So libertarians are individualist and egalitarian, conservatives are hierarchics and individualist, liberals are egalitarian and communitarian. Fascists are heirarchs and communitarians. I think.
JBinMO|10.9.07 @ 4:48PM|#
This is great. We cant win the war on drugs. We can't win the war on poverty. It doesn't look like we will win the war on terror. But a war on facts? We are gonna kick ass!!
M|10.9.07 @ 4:57PM|#
Ron Bailey looks at a new Yale study showing that most Americans believe they're entitled to their own opinions and their own facts.
No he didn't.
|10.9.07 @ 5:05PM|#
For facts to be correct, they must not only be scientifically correct, but also politically correct. Truth is what feels correct.
|10.9.07 @ 5:10PM|#
Confirmation bias and other types of biases are integral to
human nature. It is not possible to free yourself of them
entirely.
The best we can do is to make an effort to be aware that each of us
does have our own set of biases, and to be aware of what they are
so we can understand when there is a good chance that our judgement
is being clouded.
|10.9.07 @ 5:21PM|#
I will/won't eat my hot dogs with/without hot dog buns, I
love/hate mustard, and that's a fact.
You know, DoubleSpeak would clear most of this confusion up.
|10.9.07 @ 5:33PM|#
Mike Laursen asks the most important question I think:
It would be interesting to see a follow-up study of acceptance
of facts as a function of time. My experience is that people are
stubborn: they'll accept unwelcome facts only after an initial
defensive reaction and some time for the facts to soak in. Pushing
them only makes it worse.
One study that looked specifically at this was in the Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. Gilbert, Tafarodi and Malone.
'You can't NOT beleive everything you read'.
Basically, it found that people readily beleived that which they
read first. Only when given time for introspection, did people
challenge their initial impressions.
So, for those who find little time for introspection, the first
thing the read about global warming or nuclear power may be the
thing they still beleive...and so suffer confirmation bias--again
and again--in subsequent exposures.
VM|10.9.07 @ 5:34PM|#
ProGLib - DEFINITELY NOT. That settles it.
joe - that makes me so happy and sad for you.
DangerMan: that's just plain silly.
|10.9.07 @ 5:36PM|#
The problem with "facts" is that there is no magical place
to go and discover what is true and what's not.
I thought teh intertubes were the magical place where truth is
revealed.
|10.9.07 @ 5:54PM|#
A moose and flying squirrel taught me that if it's on television, it must be true
Mike Laursen|10.9.07 @ 5:57PM|#
I thought teh intertubes were the magical place where truth
is revealed.
No, that's "reviled". You must have misheard.
JBinMO|10.9.07 @ 6:11PM|#
" if it's on television, it must be true"
Actually Garfield the cat said it too. A cat a moose and a squirl
can't be wrong.
Edward|10.9.07 @ 7:43PM|#
Treating opinions (and pipe dreams) as facts is the only way one could possibly construe a Ron Paul victory.
|10.9.07 @ 7:46PM|#
Aresen,
Jack Daniels may have left that bottle, but there's always another
one out there. There's only one Jack Webb.
|10.9.07 @ 8:26PM|#
There's only one Jack Webb.
How about Jack "Dolly" Webb?
(Send in the clones, There's got to be clones.)
megs|10.10.07 @ 3:17AM|#
Fascinating. But I've always thought that no one has an open mind - it's something you have to work at constantly. Also explains why I can't make up my opinion on some subjects - I change it depending on what kind of presentation of facts I got most recently. I'm much too individualist/egalitarian/at/the/same/time!
|10.10.07 @ 12:29PM|#
They conclude that policy recommendations have a subconscious
effect on acceptance of facts. I would argue that it is very
conscious. Policy recommendations can reveal an agenda-driven
analysis that begged its own questions.
So libertarians are individualist and egalitarian
I would argue that by the article's definition, libertarians were
generally on a midpoint on the hierarchical/egalitarian scale,
since hierarchism includes repellent class privilege and
egalitarianism includes an element of repellent economic
levelling.
What would be interesting would be the effects on opinions where
the article drew no conclusions and didn't belie any agenda.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245