[cracell]

I think we need to find a better way for the philosophy behind the scientific method to click.

The entire idea of a "fact" is flawed. We simply have more good evidence for some things than others. Teaching people to critically evaluate and compare the evidence is the trick.

Perhaps studying different perspectives of a politically neutral historic event would help people to understand.

[Jensson]

> The entire idea of a "fact" is flawed.

No, we have a lot of facts. Science is the art of creating models based on facts. Those models aren't facts however which is the misconception.

[marcosdumay]

I think what confuses people is that the data isn't the facts either. We derive data from the facts, and use the data to test models.

If you go read an empirical paper, there are plenty of facts there, all in a single section that details the experimental outcome. All the other sections are derived (conclusion, abstract) or invented (methodology).

[dragonwriter]

Except for facts of the subjective experience of sense data, empiricism (including science) doesn’t deal in facts, it deals in contingent conclusions drawn from models adopted to explain the relationships between facts (in the narrow domain admitted previously.)

[tomrod]

Parsimonious models at that!

[tomrod]

Your user name as of 11/4/2021 is cracell.

This is a fact.

Where is the flaw?

[watwut]

1.) I have seen people claim their subjective opinions are "fact" just because they expressed them authoritatively and with conviction. It is not rare, it is super frequent.

And it is frequent especially in tech and adjacent communities that frame themselves as rational or scientific.

2.) With history in particular, selecting which facts you use makes massive difference. You can tell technically truth statements, leave out context and end up with a massive lie about what happened. You can switch victim and aggressor, make assholes into heroes and so on.

Same exact effect is in economy and other fields, but with history it is super easily apparent.

[aspenmayer]

The one posting may not be the legitimate owner of the account?

[tomrod]

Regardless of legitimacy of ownership, the person who posted or controlled the bot who posted had possession of the account at the timestamp stated.

[aspenmayer]

To my thinking, “your” implies legitimacy of possession.

[tomrod]

"Legitimacy" of possession at a specific moment in time is a lot to read into the comment. Simple possession is sufficient, as it attributes the actions of the actor at that specific moment to the possessor, legitimate or otherwise.

[aspenmayer]

That may make sense to you, but it does not logically follow to my reasoning. It’s a logical leap and a bridge too far.