 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Totally agreed posted by cfraser on October 26, 2002 at 13:20:52:
opinion, unless they note it is someone else's opinion. Even experts can give an expert opinion. It is up to the listener or reader to decide if that opinion CONTAINS facts or fluff for that matter. To the listener beware. That is why it is a good idea not believe everything you read or hear.:o)mp
Follow Ups:
but I agree, it is usually apparent for most *reasonably intelligent* people how to put info into context, and the way it's offered into context. However, not even close to everybody, in general, can do this. If they could, we would not have the types of mass advertising we do, and a lot more people would find much of it offensive. For instance, anybody anywhere who ever asks a "what's the best xxx?" type question is probably incapable of doing it, IMO (is IMO allowed in THIS context?). They do believe this question actually has a factual answer that is absolute truth. One of my favorite articles ever was Isaac Asimov's about the 9 different types of truth.If you believe something to the core of your being, and you state it as fact, but you are in actuality incorrect, are you being untruthful? Most considerate people would probably say you're not, yet you would be giving bad/false information. People who do that are tough to deal with, and are well over-represented on the internet. IMO, of course!
on this forum board. You are talking to some pretty intelligent folk.
I see it used a lot (in the asylum) when people are telling you if they like something or find it good or bad....purely opinion. Even facts are open to interpretation because they are tainted with human perception and experience...we are not machines, and everything we know comes through the filter of our mind.mp
"anything anyone says should be regarded as their opinion...".
Case in point, go to Steve Tafkas and my recent posted conversation
about wrestling, much of what I posted IS VERIFIABLE FACT.
For example, it is NOT MY OPINION that Sammartino defeated Rogers
on such and such date at such and such place, it's historical fact
that was duly recorded via the media and placed in the record books
for all to see. - AH
either by your personal knowledge, or from trusted sources.
people have been known to lie and present false data!
Sometimes facts are not always cut and dried because fact is always intertwined with opinions and perceptions of the one supplying it..
Case in point:
The sky is blue...to me
The sky is grey to my color blind neighbor.:o)mp
Your postion of cautious skepticism may be ideal, but I consider it
impractical and most likely unrealizable in any consistent manner.
Better to strike some midpoint twixt your postion and that of uncritical acceptance. Doubt if many at this forum would be
willing or even consistently capable of following your recommendation.
As for lying and presenting false data, this is obvious to most
discerning people. People can also be simply mistaken. Following
more a more practical, balanced modus operandi, I consider your
case in point to be the exception, my operating assumption would
be to economically assume that most people I interact with do indeed
see something approximating a blue sky. - AH
I don't analyze it, it happens naturally.
Someone who tells me the toothfairy left him a quarter, I will not believe them, even if they say it is true, actually even if it is true...because it doesn't match what I percieve to be true.Here is another example, you used in an earlier post:
Winning and losing verifiable recorded data:
in Japan, I have heard, that to win you must tie, a tie is the ultimate goal. (this may or may not be true) but it could be.
So the winner in your case would actually be a loser."One must take things with a grain of salt"
:o)
mp
If you're implying that analysis doesn't or can't occur on a subconsious level, which I take you consider "natural", then I have
to disagree. As for your comments on Japanese rules, I have a
friend who regularly toured the pro wrestling circuit in Japan (wrestling is big there) some years ago and the NWA rules are the
same there as the USA, no cross-cultural conflict or contradiction
in that regard. In chess, a lower-rated player who ties a
higher-rated player, could consider himorherself a winner of
sorts in a subjective sense and relish that, and vice-versa for the
higher-rated player, but objectively, the fact remains that, according to the rules of chess, the game was judged a tie and duly
recorded that way,
(neither lost nor won the game), even though
the lower-rated player gained rating points and the higher-rated
player lost them. The record book data is objective and not
subject to interpretation. - AH
are you implying that human perception does not play in the INTERPRETATION of facts?mp
things like expectation and selective bias. -AH
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
