Depends on the source and the weight of the claim. My fattest friend tells me the new Italian place slaps? Fact. The smartest person I know tells me there's a newly discovered planet? Worth looking into if it comes from them, but I'm skeptical.
This is exactly how science works. It self corrects as new information becomes available.
when science backs it up.
really depends on the source and if it makes sense in the first place.
It varies widely depending on a combination of whether it impacts me directly, whether it contradicts or is inconsistent with information I have already accepted as fact, and the source. The source includes being reliable and if the fact could be something that serves the source's self interest as that would require corroboration.
Until recently, if NASA tells me their current data shows that black holes exist at the center of a galaxy I take their word for it. They have been consistently reliable for decades and their entire mission is about increasing knowledge and sharing it with the entire world. With recent administrative changes I am more skeptical and wouldn't trust something that contradicts prior scientific discoveries without corroboration from an external agency like the European Space Agency. I would take the ESA at their word currently.
If a for profit company says anything I want corroboration from a neutral 3rd party. They have too much incentive to lie or mislead to be trusted on their own.
Something from a stranger that fits into prior knowledge might be accepted at face value or I might double check some other source. Depends on how important it is to me and whether believing that would lead to any obvious negative outcome. I will probably also double check if it is interesting enough to want to check, and I'll use skepticism as an excuse.
That covers actual factual stuff that could possibly be corroborated by a third party. Facts like the Earth orbits the sun or Puerto Rico is a US territory type stuff.
Then there are other things that can be factual but difficult to determine and that is a combination of experience and current knowledge, plus whether believing it would be a benefit or negative. If someone tells me the ice isn't thick enough based on their judgement I will treat it as a fact and not go out on it unless I had some reason not to believe them. If they told me apples were found to be unhealthy I would check other sources.
Thank you for such a detailed answer.
Hume had something like the wise apportion their confidence to the evidence, and Carl Sagan's extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence can apply. So if those are true the quality and type of data is going to depend on the claim of fact (friend says they bought a dog vs a dragon), and the amount of evidence depends on the claim and your general standard of evidence. If you're lowering or raising your standards for a specific claim that's usually going to mean there's a bias for or against it.
tl;dr 42 pieces of data
A couple kilobites, minimum.
When a lot of people who have nothing to do with each other say the same thing.
When people who dedicate their life to this one thing say the same.
When I can come to the same conclusion based on the reasoning behind it
When it is repeatable.
Then I going to accept it as a fact otherwise it is just something someone has said.
It honestly depends more on the source to me. I'd like to claim to rely on data but life is short and there is no way I can verify even a fraction of all the truths I have come to accept.
It depends. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I'm not sure how I would even quantify this.
But I could qualify this: having a consensus across multiple trusted sources.
A sufficient amount
Facts are hard to confirm, bullshit tends to reveal itself.
So I have try not to cling to tightly to any given "fact", in case new evidence arrives.
That said, is can be surprisingly easy to navigate many parts of life simply by avoiding confirmed bullshit.
If it's a really reliable source and sounds plausible, very little. Iran hit a hospital in Israel recently.
If it's some random person and sounds plausible, probably many repetitions from unrelated people in unrelated contexts, with some time as "word is" after a couple or few mentions. Airport security is theater and misses actual weapons all the time. I guess I should add the caveat that if it's something easily refuted like "TSA hires out of malls" it gets promoted to fact faster, because of Cunningham's law.
If it sounds implausible, a lot. Like, it might be a thing I painstakingly confirm or deny over the course of years. Thermodynamics is always explained in a way that has massive gaping logical holes. It obviously empirically works, but a rigorous derivation without any sneaky tricks would probably imply a proof of P!=NP - and it took me years to work my way through enough papers and literature to confirm that.
If it's a source or type of source with a history of making up the sort of thing they're saying, infinite - it will be all noise regardless of how much data there is.
Laying it out like this, I clearly put a lot of emphasis on the motivation and past track record of sources. There's so many things to see and measure, far too many, and there's also lies and mistakes, so I guess one has to. That's probably been true since the stone age, and probably drove some human evolution, although it's intensified quite a lot in recent history.
Note that even facts are still subject to skepticism, discussion and revision. Absolute certainty it it's own beast, and it's not a universally agreed-on fact that it even exists.
Basically, if it's in the Bible, it's fact. Everything else is entirely made up by the devil.
I'm like 90% sure this is sarcastic, but you never know.
It's sarcasm
Like, i found this youtube channel from the video "mom founf the yaoi". And now its latest video is about the rapture? Its just morse code, this description, and 2 links in the comments.
As soon as i get home, im yt-dlp this channel to preserve this.
Maybe the person in chat is a troll. May e the person is a die hard fanatic.
We will never know...
It's not so much the amount as the quality.
ill tell you this, the amount of data would require for anyone accept a statement or idea as fact is related to their emotional assessment of the idea. See it all the time with trump supporters that think that trump is actually fighting to cut tax on overtime pay simple because he said it on the trail and there no evidence (and they have no evidence) that is happening, on the other hand it would take an infinite amount of evidence that trump took bribes even as he openly appointed Elon after spending millions of dollars.
so its weird that you have to propagandize the facts just to get people anywhere near a reasonable level of skeptism.
but for me I just say anything is valid unless I know how its wrong, which is limbo of acceptance then afterwards it can become a scoreboard where for and against. maybe a source doesn't 100% line up with a statement, hell even video/audio evidence can be incongruent with a statement (as in its similar to what's said but doesn't back up a statement). I think the claim that Floyd overdosed but the video doesn't show a overdose from opioids, so you'd have to rule out overdose simple because video doesn't match the description of an overdose.
it wouldn't take much, generally new information has to be consistent with what I know. the hard part is understanding the new information. no one is randomly disprove gravity or that things have mass, but someone can prove to me how a myth is meant to be interpreted for the intended audience
I have a model of everything. Everything I am, my understanding of the world, it all fits together like a web. New ideas fit by their relationship to what I already know - maybe I'm missing nodes to fit it in and I can't accept it
If it fits the model well, I'll tentatively accept it without any evidence. If it conflicts with my model, I'll need enough proof to outweigh the parts it conflicts with. It has to be enough to displace the past evidence
In practice, this usually works pretty well. I handle new concepts well. But if you feed me something that fits... Well, I'll believe it until there's a contradiction
Like my neighbors (as a teen) told me their kid had a predisposition for autism, and the load on his immune system from too many vaccines as once caused him to be nonverbal. That made sense, that's a coherent interaction of processes I knew a bit about. My parents were there and didn't challenge it at the time
Then, someone scoffing and walking away at bringing it up made me look it up. It made sense, but the evidence didn't support it at all. So my mind was changed with seconds of research, because a story is less evidence than a study (it wasn't until years later that I learned the full story behind that)
On the other hand, today someone with decades more experience on a system was adamant I was wrong about an intermittent bug. I'm still convinced I'm right, but I have no evidence... We spent an hour doing experiments, I realized the experiments couldn't prove it one way or the other, I explained that and by the end he was convinced.
It's not the amount of evidence, it's the quality of it.
(it wasn’t until years later that I learned the full story behind that)
Okay, I can't be the only one that's kinda curious about your trainwreck neighbors. Obviously they fell down a conspiracy rabbit hole, but was there more?
Sorry to disappoint, I meant I learned the story behind the myth of vaccines causing autism. They seemed to be pretty good parents, before they moved away their kid was often outside on his bike.... He seemed happy and healthy to me.
We had a significant age gap so we never interacted, but he was on the sidewalk frequently and never in the street when I was driving... Take from that what you will
I have a model of everything. Everything I am, my understanding of the world, it all fits together like a web. New ideas fit by their relationship to what I already know - maybe I'm missing nodes to fit it in and I can't accept it
Same, and I would add the clarification that I have a model for when and why people lie, tell the truth, or sincerely make false statements (mistake, having been lied to themselves, changed circumstances, etc.).
So that information comes in through a filter of both the subject matter, the speaker, and my model of the speaker's own expertise and motivations, and all of those factors mixed together.
So as an example, let's say my friend tells me that there's a new Chinese restaurant in town that's really good. I have to ask myself whether the friend's taste in Chinese restaurants is reliable (and maybe I build that model based on proxies, like friend's taste in restaurants in general, and how similar those tastes are with my own). But if it turns out that my friend is actually taking money to promote that restaurant, then the credibility of that recommendation plummets.
It’s not the amount of evidence, it’s the quality of it.
Quality evidence has an inherent quantity wouldn't you say?
No? I don't care if the whole world is wrong, some evidence is strong enough to convince me forever, even if it's subjective
Quality is all that matters. One incontrovertible fact I can poke and prod myself means more than millions of subjective accounts. Or even all of science - I'll rearrange my entire model around a new fact if it's compelling enough
is it a fun fact that impacts nothing? i'll accept it as fact immediately and without question
is it a fact that has some weight to it? i'll probably double check and if i find a reliable source that also claims it to be fact i'll accept it (if i'm reading about it from a reliable source i will accept it immediately)
is it a fact that contradicts my current beliefs/understanding of the world? i'll do some research on it, check if there's any recent articles like "that thing you thought was right? is not!", and depending on the nature of the fact think about why it's been debunked and how that changed my perception on the world
Depends if I agree with it.
It takes a lot for me to accept something as fact, but I'm okay with living my life on a combination of likelihoods, reasonable plausibilities, and vibes
Facts are overrated
No real answer but in a general sense I try to know that most things are a matter of perspective and truth is on a probability curve
It isn't quantity. It is the quality and logical reasoning.
I would argue that quantity is just as important as quality and logical reasoning. The Triforce of Science, if you will.
None. I believe everything. Especially the contradictory parts. It's one of the powers granted to me by my true nature, revealed through the one true Slackmaster, J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.
That's the great thing about science.
Things that are considered facts in today's world can be disproven by new experiments and observations (recreated through experimentation and after adequate peer review).
So for me, it depends on what is being evaluated. 2+2 is a fact. Exact age of the moon might be up for more debate.
How is 2 + 2 a fact?
How do you know, through new experiments and observations, that we will never determine the exact age of the moon?
You have 2 apples. I give you 2 more. How many apples do you have? Unless you redefine what the numbers or the operators mean, then you now have 4 apples. That's a truth that is evident in the world and can be verified. That's what a fact is.
He didn't suggest we could never determine the age of the moon. He said that science refines it's methods and gathers new information, and so we may change our estimate of its age based on new evidence.
2+2 is a fact
In some sense, if every single human thought that 2+2 equaled 5, it would become true
(I'm not smart enough to come up with this lol, got it from Orwell's 1984)
Only if you completely redefine some aspect of the equation. You'd have to define "5" to actually mean "4" or change the meaning of "+" or "=" in some way that changes the operation. 2+2=4 isn't just an abstract statement, it's based on the way the physical world works. If you have 2 apples, and then I give you 2 more, you don't suddenly have 5 apples because we all decided 2+2=5.
Orwell's meaning in 1984 wasn't about belief changing the world, it was about the power of brainwashing and how fascism demands obedience.
It doesn't even require belief.
2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2.
While a facetious statement in general, it is factual if those values derive from rounding. Significant Digits must be maintained.
I read proper peer reviewed research. I'm usually not a specialist on the subject, so I am unable to properly process any data available.
I remember there was one fact I was really beating my head on; A dishwasher should always have some food or other gunk on the dishes before starting the machine, otherwise the detergent will attack the coloring on the dishes instead.
How has no company solved this problem? It makes no sense. Many people do wash their kitchenware so it doesn't stink up the entire dishwasher if it has been sitting for a while... idk.
I would be happy to hear if anyone can help confirm or dismiss this.
Phosphates were banned in dishwasher detergents in 2011, so most of the name brand companies switched to enzyme-based cleaners that use amylase and protease, which dissolve starches and proteins, respectively. And then some traditional detergent, which allows oil and water to mix, washes it all away.
The nature of the enzymes are that as soon as they've broken up the starch or protein, they survive the reaction and can happily move onto the next starch or protein molecule. So if they're overactive, without enough targets, then any portion of the dishes that are sensitive to that particular cleaner is going to get a higher "dose" of that cleaner working specifically at it.
I have heard this before and as far as I was ever able to find it is a bunch of bunk that seemed to originate from damage done by a recalled detergent.
Sounds like bullshit.
One datum
Nah, 42
If I can find three reputable sources that say the same thing, I feel pretty confident in accepting it as fact. The real trick is finding reputable sources. Media Bias Fact Check is really helpful for this.
If I can find three reputable sources that say the same thing
They used to say ALL cholestrol was bad, every doctor said it. But then someone discovered about HDL and LDL
Also, doctors used to say smoking doesn't cause cancer.
Also, doctors used to say smoking doesn’t cause cancer.
Doctors paid by cigarette companies said that, and they were in a tiny minority of doctors.
There are scientists now who say global warming is a hoax because they have a monetary interest.
Have you ever tried the 1 Left, 1 center, 1 right source when looking into something? I try to do this myself when I have the time and can find the articles.
At least 400 kilobyte.
Just Facebook! LOL
Logical proof, is it reasonable and do peers agree. That could be a tiny amount of data or a large amount of data. It is specific to the "something".
If we're talking about things that are easily quantifiable, not very much at all.
yeah that makes sense, like a math proof
What would you classify as easily quantifiable?
I don't know, like measurements of something. Quantities of something. Distance, speed, volume.
Things that don't very much over time, like your height.
Depending on the fact I should be able to find sources for it on .ORG and .GOV sites.
If i just find random blog posts, or facebook groups in the search results I take it with a grain of salt.
Like with questions posted in a forum: at least, having little more to read than just its title ;)
What elaboration do you require from the title to allow you to answer the question fully?
I would say, a good starting point would be a few examples of those so-called facts and their corresponding data.
Half-jokingly, I have little doubt I could find a lot of data demonstrating the earth is flat on flat-earth.org or whatever flat-earthers main website is called. But no matter the amount of data I would find there that still would not cut it as far as I'm concerned to accept their certainty as a fact—Incidentally, I also just answered your first question: it's not just the quantity of data, it's also its trustworthiness that should matter ;)
Depends how interesting or important or complex the thing is. If you tell me that your foot is 25cm long, I'll believe you without question. If you tell me it's 52cm, then you're going to have a hard time convincing me (unless you've already convinced me that you're a talking kangaroo).
This is why it's much more important to be skeptical of people's views on political issues too, because the situations are always complex, and important to different people in different ways.
