Universal Healthcare

Remove all ads!

Unfortunately, claims of facts and confirmed facts are two different things. It can sometimes be difficult to tell the difference, especially when you consider that, no matter where you get your info from, you're trusting someone's word for it. When only one group of politicized think-tanks makes a claim, and there's nothing to back it up outside of them and their supporters, I don't consider it terribly reliable. When a think-tank presents peer-reviewed scientific research, it's more so. When the think-tank is backed by major independent groups, it's even more reliable.

 

Facts are always independently verifiable -- when they aren't, we we call them opinions, theories, or arguments. When the Heritage Foundation and the Center for American progress disagree on a point of fact, it doesn't mean that the facts are debatable. It means that one (or even both) of them is wrong about the facts.

Facts aren't fungible, and determining who is being factually accurate and who is not is relatively easy to do. Just follow the citations to their sources, and verify that the facts are correct. The organization whose facts check out is right. If we are talking about two contradictory statements about one honest-to-God point of fact, there's only going to be one right answer.

 

Ok, what happens if two groups make opposing claims, and both have research backing it up? What if neither has research backing it up. What if one has research, but it's heavily criticized, while the other has squat?

Divining what is true and what isn't is rarely easy. Especially where politics is concerned.

 

If their research is based on the same core data, then it isn't a point of fact that is in contention.

Then it definitely isn't a point of fact that is in contention.

It naturally depends on the criticism, but the group that has "squat" will nearly always hold a weaker position.

For those of us too lazy to do the leg work, checking facts is indeed quite hard. For those of us willing to spend the time, however, it isn't all that difficult. Any scholarly work worth its salt will have citations that if followed will lead you all the way back to the source material. Facts are concrete. While it is possible to draw many, many conclusions from a single set of facts, the facts will always be what they are. When two different organizations come to two different conclusions using the same facts, you have a debatable issue -- but it isn't the facts themselves that are being debated. When they fail to agree on what the facts actually are, at least one of them is wrong. Facts are stubborn things, and they don't shift with the political winds.

The earth wasn't flat before we knew it was round. The sun didn't revolve around the earth before we knew the earth revolved around the sun.

 

Ok, I think we have to very different definitions of 'fact' here. That's actually surprisingly easy do achieve. How about a hypothetical. Some of the Congressional Black Caucus claims that Tea Party protestors spat at them and called them by racial slurs. This is numerous national legislators, but also politicians engaged with their direct ideological opposition. The Tea Party activists claim no such thing ever happened. This is a large number of political activists. The supposed event wasn't caught on tape, so there's no firm record of anything. Which group do you believe? By sheer number of witnesses, the Tea Party is the more reliable account. By the reputation of the witnesses, the Congressional Black Caucus probably comes out of top, but not by much (they're still politicians after all). There's no firm evidence of either claim. How do you determine the facts?

Ah, but not all matters of fact come down to empirical research. Especially facts concerning personal experiences or claims. That's my point.

And, for the record, it is possible for two researchers studying the same kind of phenomenon to come up with two different data sets that contradict each other. The facts aren't wrong, they're just much more complex than either suspects.

 

IMO, you don't. Some things are unknowable.

That illustrates a rather interesting paradox though, namely that, as goofy as it sounds, there can be 'facts' for some people that are not 'facts' for other people. Case in point: if I see the boogeyman in my closet, and I'm not insane or intoxicated or otherwise perception-compromised, well, that's a pretty reliable fact for me. Evidence of the senses ... I saw it. It won't hold water for anyone else though. That's why eyewitness accounts are oftentimes not considered factual.

 

You don't, for that specific incident. That isn't a point of fact. Tea partiers have been caught on tape using racial and ethnic slurs in the past, so the assertion that some of the tea partiers are openly racist is factual, but an argument that all or most of them are openly racist or that the entire tea party movement is built on thinly veiled racistm is just that -- an argument. It is not a point of fact, and is very much debatable.

You're bringing in matters that have nothing to do with my initial point. Facts are verifiable. If it isn't verifiable, then it is a theory, an opinion, an idea, etc. It isn't a fact, since facts are observable, inflexible, and not up for debate.

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about, NOG. Scientists aren't in the business of finding facts, but of building paradigms. They formulate new theories based on their research. It is rare indeed that an idea ever moves from the realm of "theory" into the realm of "fact". Just take a look at the theory of evolution.

Despite mountains of scientific evidence and research, despite the fact that the entire science of biology is build around the theory of evolution, despite the fact that most reasonable people consider it to be so obvious as to be self evident, it is still not considered a fact in the scientific world. Rather, it is a paradigm, a theory -- albeit a damn important one -- but still just a theory. Much of the data used as a basis for the theory is observable and, yes, factual (and therefore not really open to debate), but the actual theory? No. Evolution is not a "fact".

How much money foundations headed by <insert person here> donated to <insert movement here>, however, is a verifiable point of fact -- barring illegal or untraceable donations. I should point out, of course, that such untraceable donations would only push such a figure up.

 

As I said, I think we have two very different definitions of 'fact'. I consider a fact to be 'what is', whether there is any evidence of it or not, whether it is ever known by anyone or not. Thus, whether the Tea Party activists used racial epithets at that incident or not is still a matter of fact. We may never know whether the fact is that they did or that they didn't, but it is a matter of fact.

I'm not sure what exactly your definition of 'fact' is, but I've heard several that require it to be a matter of evidence or something that is knowable.

As for the money, the point isn't the money, but the motive of the person giving it. After all, a politician giving money to a political cause is nothing unusual, while a front for the Health Care industry giving money to a political cause should raise some eye-brows. Motives, unfortunately, are not verifiable points of fact.

 

My initial statement and the follow on statements supporting my initial assertion all had qualifiers you seem to be ignoring. Initially, I used the term observable fact. In backing up my statement, I used the qualifier point-of-fact. Arguments and honest-to-goodness facts are not the same thing. As soon as interpretation enters the picture, you are talking about an argument, paradigm, idea, etc. A fact is something that is incontrovertibly true. The world isn't flat, we didn't find any WMD in Iraq, Kurt Cobain died tragically, Andy Dick is a homosexual, Sally two-dicks has two dicks. These are factual statements*. Political or scientific arguments, even though they are often based on real, honest to goodness observable facts are still nevertheless interpretive in nature. As such, they are not "facts", but arguments. Now,. onto the brass tacks.

t is true that facts are stubborn things, and it is equally true that the facts are what they are whether or not they are known, but it is folly to insist that an argument, evidenciary or not, is a fact. Most of the time, we humans don't have sufficient information to know the actual facts regarding an object, person, or event.

Sure, but since we'll never really know the answer, all we have to work with are opinions and arguments. A guess, even an educated one, is not a fact.

In terms of practical application, that definition is absolutely correct. When intelligent and rational people make statements of fact, they aren't talking about the unknowable or the unverifiable. They're talking about the observable ones. In my not so humble opinion, people that make factual claims about the unknowable or unverifiable are usually lying, unintelligent or irrational.

Absolutely, but you were hemming and hawing about the money, not the motives.

* Well....except for the Sally two-dicks part. Regardless of what Sally says, I'm inclined to doubt that she really has two dicks.

 

Well, they are. Prosecutors are verifying motives every day, if not based on testimony or confessions, then based on evidence. There is no black box of motives into which we cannot look. When we look at the evidence it is pretty clear what this is about.

Let us assume that companies, say Health Insurance companies, are interested in their bottom line. The industry had record profits [fact], and they fear health care reform would reduce these profits (there is testimony to that end readily available on the web [fact]). So they have an incentive to do something against coming health care legislation.

Coincidentally it is verifiable that they gave out hard earned money to second parties [fact] (how that works here) that just happen to oppose, or even were specifically funded to oppose healthcare - and you suggest that because we cannot look into their heads their motives will forever remain an elusive mystery to us? Don't be silly. We're not talking about absolutes and absolute truth.

It is exceedingly probable that they gave the money investment into lobbying for legislation that will allow them to maintain their profits or at least mitigate any reduction in profits, and/or to open equally or more profitable new venues for business.

Now you'll probably say that this is all inference. Maybe so. But it establishes motives quite clearly and beyond reasonable doubt.

 

I'm trying to apply reason to the whole issue, rather than see the Tea Party demonized for perfectly reasonable actions. Some corporations have given some money to the Tea Party. Anything beyond that is inference, supposition, and suspicion, not a point-of-fact.

No, we can infer and make educated guesses, but ultimately these are no better than theories. They can be disproven by evidence (sometimes), but never completely proven. And often, even proving them to any level of certainty is iffy.

Funny how that 'fact' didn't have a link, and needed something to explain it, something that, in the end, relied mostly on rummor and suspicion. The only 'fact' I see in there is that '15-20%' of FreedomWorks' funding comes from 'corporations' (of all kinds, it would seem). Of course, that means 80-85% comes from other sources, like private individuals. Ensuring Liberty has set up another corporation to raise money, but the whole point of the article is that they don't have to tell you who from. I.e. we may never know. The question then becomes how much influence is that corporate money buying, and is it influencing the way Ensuring Liberty and Freedom Works work? I mean, if they're opposing health care reform anyway, there's nothing wrong with a corporation that also opposes it supporting them, be they a HC corporation, or just a group of conservatives. That's been done in both sides of politics for ages. It's only if the money is causing them to oppose something they otherwise wouldn't that it becomes an issue, and the people are being used. Otherwise, they're just being supported.

You're not. Apparently Drew is. It's not silly to respond to someone in terms of what they're talking about.

And that's my point. It establishes motives, but nothing more. I can establish a motive for the green movement to have rigged Deep Horizon to blow, and I can do it easily. I can even show it wouldn't be outside the character of certain groups. That's not evidence that they did it, though.

 

Oh forget it. Didn't I post those bits about funding just a couple of posts before? Oh never mind. Life is a brand new experience every morning? What is your attention span?

NOG, if established motives are good enough to send people to jail or death row, that standard is fine with me as far as judging conduct of insurance companies on a nominally gaming related message board is concerned.

 

NOG, just stop. I stepped into this thread solely because, as is your established pattern, you were hemming and hawing about verifiable facts and thus circumventing any chance at a real, honest debate about the issue, instead forcing the participants to move from distraction to distraction without even discussing the issue at hand.

The debate cannot even begin on this issue -- or any issue -- until you acknowledge what the facts are -- and just as importantly what the facts aren't. Despite this, every time I enter a debate with you I am forced again and again to do all of your research for you, checking your facts for you, even catching you in bald-faced lies as I did in the PETA thread without even a hint of remorse on your part -- and I'm tired of it. Don't argue that a source is invalid because you don't agree with it. Check the facts yourself or let the point go. You of all people have no right to demand that other people do your research for you. Peace.

 

... we shouldn't have to check the math of an engineer either...

 

Yes.

 

If this is going to turn into a 'jump the NOG' rally, then count me as a no. Seems to me he's legitimately arguing definition of terms. What could be more fundamental than that?

 

... thinking of it in light of his recent posts ...

... what could be more beside the point?

There is no doubt here, and NOG is being constantly and persistently unreasonable in finding insufficient evidence for things that conservatives actors of all sorts are being with usually good reason called out for.

Lest we forget - here it is about GOP aligned and industry funded lobbyists astroturfing with the tea parties against Obama's health care reform. His beef with that: Hey, all the sources are liberal. Rachel Maddow is a liberal. So she is biased, and her points are ... worthless? Wrong? False? Lies? Something he does not want to believe anyway, whatever it is? Never mind. But that tainted source certainly is a welcome excuse to dismiss anything coming from it as insufficient evidence for whatever. Aah, the dastardly liberal media ... poisoned wells everywhere ... truly a godsend!

And the issue is entirely interchangeable - Evolution, Darwinism, Immigration, Gay Marriage, Gayness, Education, Separation of Church and State, Global Warming - pick your wedge issue. It doesn't matter what it is about - but one thing is for sure: Whatever it is about, conservatives are being unfairly persecuted, again! That apparently suffices to set in motion his gather-with-the-the-herd-against-the-wolves instincts.

In his relentless pursuit to defend the conservative cause against its liberal detractors here on SP, NOG essentially always does the same thing: phase #1 Deny everything, and then demand proof. When that inevitably fails phase #2: The relativism excuse - everybody does it.

It can easily take some two digit thread pages to get him to phase #2. The general idea behind doubting everything and demanding proof in phase #1 is to distract and to bog down the debate with pointless bickering about definitions that at best have only faint relevance to the topic, and to demand proof and then demand proof again - and last but not least, to never concede defeat or tire of responding. Think about a textbook example for a destructive debating style. And what a measure for success that is: Persuading nobody, he outlasts everyone! Victory!

If he is lucky he annoys everybody out of grinding down his posts before he is forced to go over to phase #2 - and even when he gets to phase #2 he scores a draw: All disagree - long live the controversy!

​

Obviously my annoyance got the better of me so it is probably palpable from my comment that most of the time I consider debating NOG a lamentable waste of valuable time that can be so much better spent doing other, usually far more pleasant, things.

 

In all fairness my comment was an anti-engineer comment -- I find it amazing that so many engineers are really bad with basic calculations. When I was a TA for the physical chemistry labs I was constantly amazed when the engineers wanted partial credit because "it was only a math error."

... I doubt any of them had ever heard of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

 

How so?

That's not what it is. Seems to me you argue that he is "just making his point," but when others do the same, it's somehow a ""jump on NOG."