Hi to you,
I'm surprised that you seem to exclude some things in this regard that are actually obvious; well, to me anyway :). An attempt at illustration: Let's assume we were dealing with a really deadly killer virus. What would have happened? Wouldn't so many people have died that their absence would have disrupted food supply chains? Weren't there still people transporting things from A to B, by ship, plane, truck and so on? And don't the delivered goods have to be taken by people and put on the supermarket shelves?
Since humans are not able to determine a phenomenon unambiguously in time and space (a view I hold), would we have noticed an unusually large number of sick and dying people before the news about this killer virus was published? In my way of thinking, catastrophes of the kind we have been presented with cannot be stopped, they happen contrary to what man is able to prevent.
How much do you accept media dissemination and the images of danger that come with it as influencing the human psyche? On a scale of 0-10 (0 = no influence, 10=absolute influence).
If you assume that human beings are able to perceive imminent danger clearly and at a specific point in time, then we would first have to discuss this question, wouldn't we?
From my point of view, modern man is dominated by the idea of not only being able to predict events of a planetary nature (natural disasters, plagues, etc.) but also to control them as he sees fit. But where an event did not occur in the first place (mass deaths), the question remains unprovable whether it did not occur due to human intervention or whether the intervention actually had less to do with it than assumed (or rather desired). Please feel free to read my latest post on this topic. I would like to know what you think about it.
Regards to you.
Good one.
It is certainly one of the most difficult facts to accept that people have such different views on life that understanding seems impossible. Perhaps it should be said that a three-year-old cannot understand an adult and vice versa, and that the space-time in which people arrive at answers and insights is almost inaccessible to all but oneself. Perhaps one should simply remain silent about such things. ... I have found that situations where I meet privately also proceed in such a way that one does not ask for one's view on the subject. And you can have a good evening together. I wonder if that will be the case again in work and public life. I wish it would.
i do my best to draw a clear line between "fact" and "opinion".
So do I.
It's a matter of decision, is it not? Where you cut the line of information taken in and from there, what to believe and to decide upon. Facts leave room for interpretation, that's also a fact :)
People seem to be obsessed with the notion that you could deliver information of the same nature to all at once. This is impossible.
FACT is not INTERPRETATION
INTERPRETATION is not FACT
I altered your two statements :)
Fact stands alone and waits for interpretation
Interpretation picked up fact
(but then: who put a fact to see it, in its first place? What motive caused him doing it?)
Good point.
FACT is always sample-biased.
This sentence already contains a subjective part, which can't be told to be a certain (but uncertain) fact. That is "who showed up to demonstrate". Did all the 1000 people appear to "demonstrate"? Did some of them just join the crowd for fun? If asked from an interviewer "Why are you here?", the answer could be "by coincidence, I happened to do my shopping here."
Black Sheep
An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician were on a train heading north, and had just crossed the border into Scotland.
There were 1000 people on this particular street at this particular time is a FACT that can be verified with a photograph.
The INTERPRETATION "to demonstrate" is added on top of the FACT.
Yes, it is, in the sense for what facts are being used for. Facts never stand alone. They are taken up to do or explain something with them.
Let's say, you count 1000 people who showed up to demonstrate on the street. That is a fact. Now, what happens?
People put that into a context, they use it contextual in reference to their thoughts.
Some say, "1000 - Wow, that's a huge number!"
Others say: "1000 - Not many people showed up."
And others say: "1000 - In relation to what the demo was about, the number of people is weak."
If you'd left out to use that number for a context, the number would just stand there alone without any significance whatsoever. It remains meaningless, unless someone picks it up and puts it into a (his/hers/their) context.
Raw data comprises FACT.
You correctly point out that raw data is, in and of itself, emotionally meaningless.
A fact is considered to be "objective", right?
I copy this from one of my latest posts:
First a quote from Heinz von Förster:
We appear to be on the same page.
The rather bizarre Orwellian concept of "objectivity" has somehow managed to worm its way into our language. Practically everyone falsely believes (with unjustifiable confidence) that "objectivity" exists and is an unquestionable ideal-high-goal and more so that their own beliefs are "more objective" or "fair and balanced" than their detractors, and beyond that, all their detractors are either being disingenuous, "are fundamentally and incurably stupid and/or evil", or intellectually deaf and blind. Case closed. Let's all go back to our bubbles.
This premise about "objectivity" detailed above, allows people to pretend great atrocities are justified against "non believers" because "they deserve what they get". Side note: In order to properly justify such a hypothesis (like "they deserve what they get") would require significant and detailed philosophical exploration. In other words, if you believe in a black and white world and "philosophy" muddies the waters, then "philosophy" is a "problem" and must be wrong, ex post-facto. This is an example of "affirming the consequent" (a logical fallacy) which basically means you are "closed minded" and only seek serious exploration of ideas that you believe are likely to reinforce your own pre-conceived ideas, technically known as prejudices.
And before you think I'm trying to single out one particular group of people, "godless secular liberal progressives" are just as guilty of this type of thinking as the other more obvious religious and political targets.
The simple fact that people (Trumpies are just one example) are able to very effectively dismiss and deflect all criticism by characterizing their detractors as "biased" proves how pervasive and insidious and anti-intellectual this ideal-high-goal of "objectivity" is. This specific technique is a combination of "false choice" and indirect "ad hominem" attack. In formal logic it is widely recognized as an illegitimate form of argument (logical fallacy). And yet, by all accounts "millions of people" think this qualifies as a plausible line of reasoning.
Now before you dismiss me as "a crack pot", I would like to point out that I do believe "a broad consensus" is a very good standard for "truth". And even Karl Popper admits, when pressed, that science isn't based on "objectivity" but rather on "a broad consensus" of "well qualified individuals" (intersubjective), which in a lot of ways is nearly functionally identical, but with the key difference being that "a broad consensus" doesn't necessarily categorize detractors as either being disingenuous, "fundamentally and incurably stupid and/or evil", or intellectually deaf and blind. It at least leaves the door open to the idea that there may be some legitimate disagreement based on contrary evidence or other logical considerations without an automatic reflexive leap to pure demonization (terrorism is another good example of this).
Thanks so much for visiting and the great response :-) I've responded to your post about What is a disaster? What means emergency?, which I can recommend to everyone. I hope that response answers most of your questions.