Facts Vs Opinons

[TruthSlave]

Facts Vs Opinions

The other day for no particular reason i decided to check out the
Chelsea scores. I wasn't a fan, i had no reason to follow their
results. It was something i could do and so i did. It was just
another of those itches which a curious mind might seek to scratch
from time to time.

Based on these sparce facts, would you say i was a fan? Would you
share that opinion as a fact? Or would you make it known, that it
was only an opinion? How would your opinion be recieved by those
who heard it? Should you be concerned for your effects?

Anyone looking to make a meal of those sparce facts, might conclude
i must be a Chelsea fan, or else why would i spend the time and effort
to search for that information? The same for anyone recieving that
opinion. Would they assume the worst? I must be a fan, else why would
this information be deemed significant to share?

Facts or opinions

Opinions are subjective, reflecting the interest of the observer, often
reflecting the language used to summaries the facts. Opinions, could be
liken to summaries, and therefore not taken as complete, but instead
seen as topics, or subject headings, the nearest vaugest match to what
we know or seek. These Summaries assume an equal understanding on the
use of the summary.

Then of course there are the motives driving these summaries. 'A need
to know', coming before any claim to understand. An assumption of
truth, where one could just as easily see a flawed system of control.
A mechanical burocratisation of information? Automation of repeaters?

This, says the summary is my resondetra, this is what motivates me,
this should motivate you. This reflects my desire for status, this is
me becoming the important. This report reflects on me, it is what i
seek to be. Or put another way, would one be content to report the
mundane, as the mundane? ..I think not.

Question, if one only reported/collated what was elavated to assume
significance, what would those reports look like over time. A record
of alarms reflecting a machine designed around extremes? Post-internet
man would have to adapt to the new views held of him, to become
less curious perhaps, but i digress...

As the recipent of these opinions how should you respond? Do you accept
the opinion, to interpret it according to your own understandings of
'the opinion'. Do accept the opinion as another unchallengable fact,
to then respond and repeat it as a fact? Are you the kind of individual
to question your source? Are you in a position to question the source?

We can't always tell of our influences, or our effects as we share.
There is what we intend by our actions, even then, we can't alway see
what is intended with our knowledge. Our effects would only be known
with feedback.

Sometimes though opinions are shared not as facts, but as questions.
Ideas as subject headings or flags raised for speculation and sensible
deliberation. Again, what are the facts, who or what first created
that summary. With that thought, how should you respond?


Chelsea supporter?

"come on you reds"....

[Zerkon]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:38:35 +0100, TruthSlave wrote:

> Based on these sparce facts, would you say i was a fan?

Given: A fan is short for a fanatic.

Is there empirical evidence that the term fanatic can be justifiably
applied to certain people who attend or are interested in football [aka
soccer] matches? Or, can such evidence be really only a matter of opinion?

Since you could not offer a "particular reason" for checking the score,
you obviously act and are used to acting (1) without reason so I would
say then based upon these sparse facts you probably are a fan[atic]. Of
course the Headhunter hoodie you have on strengthens this opinion.


1) "It was just another of those itches... to scratch from time to time."

[TruthSlave]

Hmm,

Lets say the thought occured to me, 'i wonder how Chelsea are doing',
and then, simply because i could, i sought to research their current
status, it shouldn't mean i have any kind of passion for that team.
Its only perhaps with time, and a pattern of similar enquiries that
one forms a conclusion.

Even then, i might repeat this search/enquiry not as a fan. I could
have a friend whose a keen supporter, and for that reason i might seek
a familarity with the topic. I could have heard something on the Share
Price for the club, and for that reason speculate on their future
fortunes. I might have...

The point is there are any number of reasons for this research, besides
the opportunistic conclusions which might be jumped to. The idea here
is that opinions taken from the facts reflects the uses for those
opinions. We see what we need to see. It reflects the knowledge which
one brings to bare on those facts. This is about what we say we know,
when in truth, we can't know everything.

I question the conclusions we seem obligued to jump to. I question the
mechanized opinions which then just sits there. Opinions which we then
repeat, as if to make it real. Opinions shared, simply because this
information is now available to us, and are obligued to find a use for
it. Always with a presumption of the worst, because only the worst
interpretation of those opinions justify our preoccupation with those
opinions.

My other point is that the net, and our other gadgets, now makes these
judgement calls, more likely than not. And then its a case of what we
respond to, how and why?

Can we always tell the facts from the opinion?

[Dare]

"TruthSlave" <T...@home.com> wrote in message news:kn39p4$cqf$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

What is a fact?
Is it "truth"? Knowledge?
Seems we don't know what we don't know...
could anything we humans can perceive be
"truth" or a complete knowledge or "fact"?

[Zerkon]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:50:15 +0100, TruthSlave wrote:

> On 16/05/13 18:38, Zerkon wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:38:35 +0100, TruthSlave wrote:
>>
>>> Based on these sparce facts, would you say i was a fan?
>>
>> Given: A fan is short for a fanatic.
>>
>> Is there empirical evidence that the term fanatic can be justifiably
>> applied to certain people who attend or are interested in football [aka
>> soccer] matches? Or, can such evidence be really only a matter of
>> opinion?
>>
>> Since you could not offer a "particular reason" for checking the score,
>> you obviously act and are used to acting (1) without reason so I would
>> say then based upon these sparse facts you probably are a fan[atic]. Of
>> course the Headhunter hoodie you have on strengthens this opinion.
>>
>>
>> 1) "It was just another of those itches... to scratch from time to
>> time."
>>
>>
>>
> Hmm,

I hope you understand I am responding with a bit of tongue in a lot of
cheek...

>
> Lets say the thought occured to me, 'i wonder how Chelsea are doing',
> and then, simply because i could, i sought to research their current
> status, it shouldn't mean i have any kind of passion for that team. Its
> only perhaps with time, and a pattern of similar enquiries that one
> forms a conclusion.

OK but given existence as a personal entirety, iow your entire life now,
from all possible thoughts or wonders that might come to you, it was 'how
Chelsea was doing' that arose and, sorry, "simply because I could" sounds
very dodgy 'cause you simply could search for a lot of other things also.

If 'passion' is scaled down a little to 'interest' you must admit to
having, at least, an interest. Again the question arises: Do people who
follow football, the specific team is not important here, usually have an
interest in the sport or a passion for it? Being from an ex-colony I must
admit I do not know (gasp!) the answer to this other than the casualness
you claim and football seem an unlikely fit.

> Even then, i might repeat this search/enquiry not as a fan. I could have
> a friend whose a keen supporter, and for that reason i might seek a
> familarity with the topic. I could have heard something on the Share
> Price for the club, and for that reason speculate on their future
> fortunes. I might have...

>
> The point is there are any number of reasons for this research, besides
> the opportunistic conclusions which might be jumped to. The idea here is
> that opinions taken from the facts reflects the uses for those opinions.
> We see what we need to see. It reflects the knowledge which one brings
> to bare on those facts. This is about what we say we know, when in
> truth, we can't know everything.
>
> I question the conclusions we seem obligued to jump to. I question the
> mechanized opinions which then just sits there. Opinions which we then
> repeat, as if to make it real. Opinions shared, simply because this
> information is now available to us, and are obligued to find a use for
> it. Always with a presumption of the worst, because only the worst
> interpretation of those opinions justify our preoccupation with those
> opinions.

Why the always the worst?

>
> My other point is that the net, and our other gadgets, now makes these
> judgement calls, more likely than not. And then its a case of what we
> respond to, how and why?
>
> Can we always tell the facts from the opinion?

By definition, yes. IOW, it depends on how fact and opinion are defined.
One way is to define Fact as always a first hand experience via empirical
evidence or one's own a priori process based upon personal experience.
But, this is only an opinion.

[TruthSlave]

Good question.

I would say the facts relate to events, to some kind of
actuality, and as such, it is about the truth. Would this
be the same as knowledge? Like the truth, the facts wont
change, but our opinions of the facts might.

Knowledge could be based on the facts, even then, what we
call knowledge could simply be series of learned associations
to the facts. Received knowledge. The consensus, with presumed
connections. A form of conditioned response.

Hear x think y. See A assume b. Rule based, before its ever
really rational. So that it challenges or confounds reason.


Here's a kind of example:

2 + 2 == 4
2 + 2 == 3

where 2 + 2, are the facts
== 4 , the truth
== 3 , an opinion

In the first case we have a rule, which we can also test.
We can say the facts, and the truth we take from those
facts, are one. Either the facts are simple, or we have
time for the test, or we are smart and can see immediately
the rational connection between the facts and the truth.

In the second case, we might observe the facts, and based
on rules, albeit flawed rules, form an association, which
allows us to derive an opinion. This opinion would be shared,
and received in the same manner, based on the expected as a
reflex, a vague descriptor for the facts.

I suppose the point is to be consistent. Could we, based
on that opinion, know what the facts were?

This reflex or instinct to associate between facts and opinion,
might suit us where we have little time to work it through,
but i wonder about the rest of times.

How well are we served when we don't understand the rules
is moot.

[TruthSlave]

Zerkon wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:50:15 +0100, TruthSlave wrote:
>
>> On 16/05/13 18:38, Zerkon wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:38:35 +0100, TruthSlave wrote:
>>>
>>>> Based on these sparce facts, would you say i was a fan?
>>> Given: A fan is short for a fanatic.
>>>
>>> Is there empirical evidence that the term fanatic can be justifiably
>>> applied to certain people who attend or are interested in football [aka
>>> soccer] matches? Or, can such evidence be really only a matter of
>>> opinion?
>>>
>>> Since you could not offer a "particular reason" for checking the score,
>>> you obviously act and are used to acting (1) without reason so I would
>>> say then based upon these sparse facts you probably are a fan[atic]. Of
>>> course the Headhunter hoodie you have on strengthens this opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) "It was just another of those itches... to scratch from time to
>>> time."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Hmm,
>
> I hope you understand I am responding with a bit of tongue in a lot of
> cheek...

well its something to do where there was nothing... ;/

>> Lets say the thought occured to me, 'i wonder how Chelsea are doing',
>> and then, simply because i could, i sought to research their current
>> status, it shouldn't mean i have any kind of passion for that team. Its
>> only perhaps with time, and a pattern of similar enquiries that one
>> forms a conclusion.
>
> OK but given existence as a personal entirety, iow your entire life now,
> from all possible thoughts or wonders that might come to you, it was 'how
> Chelsea was doing' that arose and, sorry, "simply because I could" sounds
> very dodgy 'cause you simply could search for a lot of other things also.
>
> If 'passion' is scaled down a little to 'interest' you must admit to
> having, at least, an interest. Again the question arises: Do people who
> follow football, the specific team is not important here, usually have an
> interest in the sport or a passion for it? Being from an ex-colony I must
> admit I do not know (gasp!) the answer to this other than the casualness
> you claim and football seem an unlikely fit.

Who can say how our influences and impulses work. I might have been
subliminally cohercied on the thought of Chelsea. One might presume
some kind of reward for the effort to seek this information on chelsea.
The point is to distinguish between the passionate fanatic, and the
casual swot looking to complete his general knowledge.

>
>> Even then, i might repeat this search/enquiry not as a fan. I could have
>> a friend whose a keen supporter, and for that reason i might seek a
>> familarity with the topic. I could have heard something on the Share
>> Price for the club, and for that reason speculate on their future
>> fortunes. I might have...
>
>> The point is there are any number of reasons for this research, besides
>> the opportunistic conclusions which might be jumped to. The idea here is
>> that opinions taken from the facts reflects the uses for those opinions.
>> We see what we need to see. It reflects the knowledge which one brings
>> to bare on those facts. This is about what we say we know, when in
>> truth, we can't know everything.
>>
>> I question the conclusions we seem obligued to jump to. I question the
>> mechanized opinions which then just sits there. Opinions which we then
>> repeat, as if to make it real. Opinions shared, simply because this
>> information is now available to us, and are obligued to find a use for
>> it. Always with a presumption of the worst, because only the worst
>> interpretation of those opinions justify our preoccupation with those
>> opinions.
>
> Why the always the worst?

In this case its about human basis for motivation. What drives us,
what motivates our responses? Is it the best or the worst? Is it
our loves or our fears? How would we justify our investments, if
its not by this presumption of the worst. Aren't we pushed by the
worst, prodded or disturbed into action by the worst? There's also
room to see the part played by dissonance. In that we need a reason
for the time we spend on any project, and so once again this extreme
could be made to seem natural, just to satisfy that element of
dissonance in our psyche. The worst, as an answer to justify our
expenditure of and waste of energy.

>
>> My other point is that the net, and our other gadgets, now makes these
>> judgement calls, more likely than not. And then its a case of what we
>> respond to, how and why?
>>
>> Can we always tell the facts from the opinion?
>
> By definition, yes. IOW, it depends on how fact and opinion are defined.
> One way is to define Fact as always a first hand experience via empirical
> evidence or one's own a priori process based upon personal experience.
> But, this is only an opinion.
>

Always?