There are no facts

[nigel99 144]

Interesting discussion with my teenage son. We were discussing a few issues and I was getting frustrated that he gets sucked in by armchair experts over career experts. In his defence he does research extensively.

He came out with an interesting comment that 'there are no facts anymore', experts contradict each other and you just don't know what is true. Bearing in mind his main interest is nutrition and health I can see that for youngsters it must be truly confusing.

Of course I know my views are right and so he should listen to me

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[JohnyCrawford 0]

That's the way I feel about the news. There are so many lies being told, that even if you think something they're saying is true, you can't really be sure. So you have to trust nothing. Hell of a state of affairs.

[quade 3]

This is a con. Not your son's opinion, but the thing being perpetrated by the oligarchy. Make the people trust no one's facts so then they can do whatever they want.

Orwell talked about it in 1984.
Hitler talked about it in Mein Kampf.
Chayefsky talked about it in Network.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,400]

Quote

This is a con. Not your son's opinion, but the thing being perpetrated by the oligarchy. Make the people trust no one's facts so then they can do whatever they want.

“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.” Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

[ryoder 1,388]

quade

This is a con. Not your son's opinion, but the thing being perpetrated by the oligarchy. Make the people trust no one's facts so then they can do whatever they want.

Orwell talked about it in 1984.
Hitler talked about it in Mein Kampf.
Chayefsky talked about it in Network.

Just a couple days ago I was reading a new article about current Russian society, and it was talking about the same thing there. Unfortunately, I have no idea where I saw it.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,388]

quade

Chayefsky talked about it in Network.

A sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[nigel99 144]

quade

This is a con. Not your son's opinion, but the thing being perpetrated by the oligarchy. Make the people trust no one's facts so then they can do whatever they want.

Orwell talked about it in 1984.
Hitler talked about it in Mein Kampf.
Chayefsky talked about it in Network.

I agree, it was just an interesting outlook from a kid.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Phil1111 911]

Scientists ask a question then seek answers. It requires an inquisitive nature and mind. People need to further develope the same attitude if they do not have such a nature now.

Trumpism
A gospel politicians preach to instill fear in locals: illegals are bringing crime and robbing their jobs, and radicals among Muslim refugees are terrorizing the "infidels."
Although Trumpism arguably promotes extreme nationalism, anti-globalization, xenophobia, and Islamophobia, however, many politicians in the developed world secretly endorse this divisive doctrine to guard against crime and terrorism.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Prov. After being tricked once, one should be wary, so that the person cannot trick you again.

Definitions for 'A fool at 40 is a fool forever'
If someone hasn't matured by the time they reach forty, they never will.

Above is a good start for your son. Beyond that there have been several articles about the psychology of trump books like 1984
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/george-orwells-1984-best-seller-heres-resonates-now/

The pdf book here:
http://www.planetebook.com/ebooks/1984-2.pdf

[wolfriverjoe 1,341]

nigel99

***This is a con. Not your son's opinion, but the thing being perpetrated by the oligarchy. Make the people trust no one's facts so then they can do whatever they want.

Orwell talked about it in 1984.
Hitler talked about it in Mein Kampf.
Chayefsky talked about it in Network.

I agree, it was just an interesting outlook from a kid.

Have you taught him how to think critically?

Critical thinking isn't always intuitive or natural.
It's a skill that has to be learned and refined and honed.

Same thing with objectivity.

Evaluating sources, comparing differing views, looking at situations without allowing your own prejudices too much influence (that's the hard one).

There are sources out there that are reasonably objective and trustworthy. Many agree that NPR (US) BBC (Britain) and Al Jazeera (UAE) are at or near the top of that list.

Yet when you read the same story on each of them, there's a slightly different spin. So they aren't perfect, and I don't know anyone who claims they are. Yet many of the detractors claim that their follower claim that.

The problem is that there are people out there who don't want the truth to be told. So they spread plausible lies. Partly to get their version of the story out there, but largely to make it harder and harder to ascertain the actual truth.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Phil1111 911]

wolfriverjoe

******This is a con. Not your son's opinion, but the thing being perpetrated by the oligarchy. Make the people trust no one's facts so then they can do whatever they want.

Orwell talked about it in 1984.
Hitler talked about it in Mein Kampf.
Chayefsky talked about it in Network.

I agree, it was just an interesting outlook from a kid.

Have you taught him how to think critically?

Critical thinking isn't always intuitive or natural.
It's a skill that has to be learned and refined and honed.

Same thing with objectivity.

Evaluating sources, comparing differing views, looking at situations without allowing your own prejudices too much influence (that's the hard one).

There are sources out there that are reasonably objective and trustworthy. Many agree that NPR (US) BBC (Britain) and Al Jazeera (UAE) are at or near the top of that list.

Yet when you read the same story on each of them, there's a slightly different spin. So they aren't perfect, and I don't know anyone who claims they are. Yet many of the detractors claim that their follower claim that.

The problem is that there are people out there who don't want the truth to be told. So they spread plausible lies. Partly to get their version of the story out there, but largely to make it harder and harder to ascertain the actual truth.

Yes and Yes. Its necessary to go to sites like AL-jazzera on occasion to get an understanding of where a portion of the "Arab street" so to speak is coming from. Although I've never read a whole article from Breitbart news. I've been to the site.

My personal favorite journal is the Economist. For the times I go to AL-jazzera, I also take a swing through the region to
http://www.dawn.com/ for a Pakistani take on news,
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ for the Indian take.

For whatever reason I omit Australia and new Zealand take on news. I guess that makes me ignorant, but I through them into the BBC news feed.

If you feed your mind bs from tabloid newspapers and only go to the same sources of news that support your opinion. Your objectivity attitude will be set in stone. Sooner or later.

[nigel99 144]

wolfriverjoe

******This is a con. Not your son's opinion, but the thing being perpetrated by the oligarchy. Make the people trust no one's facts so then they can do whatever they want.

Orwell talked about it in 1984.
Hitler talked about it in Mein Kampf.
Chayefsky talked about it in Network.

I agree, it was just an interesting outlook from a kid.

Have you taught him how to think critically?

Critical thinking isn't always intuitive or natural.
It's a skill that has to be learned and refined and honed.

Same thing with objectivity.

Evaluating sources, comparing differing views, looking at situations without allowing your own prejudices too much influence (that's the hard one).

There are sources out there that are reasonably objective and trustworthy. Many agree that NPR (US) BBC (Britain) and Al Jazeera (UAE) are at or near the top of that list.

Yet when you read the same story on each of them, there's a slightly different spin. So they aren't perfect, and I don't know anyone who claims they are. Yet many of the detractors claim that their follower claim that.

The problem is that there are people out there who don't want the truth to be told. So they spread plausible lies. Partly to get their version of the story out there, but largely to make it harder and harder to ascertain the actual truth.

It's a work in progress. He's pretty good hence the kind of discussion we were having.

Totally agree on different news sources and BBC is my goto. But I still find they have a slant on things. Most vividly for me I remember the dodgy dossier saga. All the UK media outlets put a spin on it, the government at the time clearly let them or even encouraged that spin, but when you read the report it was a huge stretch to see Iraq as a threat to the UK. That taught me to go to the source whenever possible, the gap between reporting and fact was quite big.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[quade 3]

nigel99

That taught me to go to the source whenever possible, the gap between reporting and fact was quite big.

Going to source documents is almost always a good idea.

If there is a story without a link to the source document, you can almost always be assured it's either laziness or deliberately spinning what they don't want you to see. You probably don't want either of those.

I'm also a big fan of cross checking analysis against various sides of an issue. Try to not get your news from just one source you happen to like, but also read some that wasn't specifically targeted for your demographic or beliefs.

Question everything.

Lastly, don't make "perfect" the enemy of "good." You'll never find the perfect anything and the lesser of two evils . . . well, that's at least less evil[/I].

This is what I'll never understand about anyone who didn't pick the lesser of two evil options in this latest US election; they allowed evil to win. And not just a little evil, but it appears as if it's a historic level of evil for the US.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[MikeJD 0]

nigel99

*********This is a con. Not your son's opinion, but the thing being perpetrated by the oligarchy. Make the people trust no one's facts so then they can do whatever they want.

Orwell talked about it in 1984.
Hitler talked about it in Mein Kampf.
Chayefsky talked about it in Network.

I agree, it was just an interesting outlook from a kid.

Have you taught him how to think critically?

Critical thinking isn't always intuitive or natural.
It's a skill that has to be learned and refined and honed.

Same thing with objectivity.

Evaluating sources, comparing differing views, looking at situations without allowing your own prejudices too much influence (that's the hard one).

There are sources out there that are reasonably objective and trustworthy. Many agree that NPR (US) BBC (Britain) and Al Jazeera (UAE) are at or near the top of that list.

Yet when you read the same story on each of them, there's a slightly different spin. So they aren't perfect, and I don't know anyone who claims they are. Yet many of the detractors claim that their follower claim that.

The problem is that there are people out there who don't want the truth to be told. So they spread plausible lies. Partly to get their version of the story out there, but largely to make it harder and harder to ascertain the actual truth.

It's a work in progress. He's pretty good hence the kind of discussion we were having.

Totally agree on different news sources and BBC is my goto. But I still find they have a slant on things. Most vividly for me I remember the dodgy dossier saga. All the UK media outlets put a spin on it, the government at the time clearly let them or even encouraged that spin, but when you read the report it was a huge stretch to see Iraq as a threat to the UK. That taught me to go to the source whenever possible, the gap between reporting and fact was quite big.

One problem is that the internet, which should be making us all better-informed and more open-minded, may well be having the opposite effect. There is so much material out there now that whatever your bias it's easy to find any number of 'facts' that appear to back it up.

I like the idea of sites like http://www.procon.org that deliberately present both sides of an argument and so (in theory) allow you to make up your own mind on controversial issues.

I think the most depressing internet effect is the bandwagon-jumping that's generated by viral posts on Facebook and in particular Twitter, where ideas seem to gain credibility just because of a sort of mob mentality. We also see a lot of fake news stories propagated that way. Incredibly powerful, incredibly dangerous.

[airdvr 197]

Quote

One problem is that the internet, which should be making us all better-informed and more open-minded, may well be having the opposite effect. There is so much material out there now that whatever your bias it's easy to find any number of 'facts' that appear to back it up.

Agreed. This combined with the "echo chamber" effect some browsers force on people.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Phil1111 911]

FOX
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01/31/exclusive-pentagon-believes-attack-on-saudi-frigate-meant-for-us-warship.html

FOX, I shouldn't get started on FOX. It's the perfect definition of a trolling news service. But I digress. I'm not sure of the history but the Houthi Shia have the same narrative attached to every video and every attack Be it on Government, Saudi or US forces. When there is a video of a RPG attack on a Saudi tank they chant Death to America, Death to Israel, God is Great. Its as if the gunner was a Jew and the driver American, in a Saudi tank.

It could be that Iran supplies the ATGM and has instructions that the Saudi, gulf state co-coalition. Are really Israeli's in disguise using US equipment. For the benefit of Saudi royalty.

Israel
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4915686,00.html

UPI
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/01/31/Saudi-Arabia-Two-warship-crew-members-die-in-Houthi-boat-attack/8741485875853/

RT
"The vessel, presumably one of the four Saudi Al Madinah-class frigates, was allegedly hit by a guided anti-ship missile, according to al-Masirah television network citing an unnamed source in the Yemeni rebel forces loyal to ex-president Ali Abdullah Saleh.

The attack took place near the port city of Hodeida, 150 kilometers southwest of the Yemeni capital Sana’a, according to the source who said the ‘aggressor’s warship, involved in attacks on Yemeni “cities and fishermen,” was “destroyed” as a result."
https://www.rt.com/news/375701-saudi-warship-attack-killed/

Yemen coming to the desk of President bannon....er trump. SOON!

[rifleman 61]

wolfriverjoe

******This is a con. Not your son's opinion, but the thing being perpetrated by the oligarchy. Make the people trust no one's facts so then they can do whatever they want.

Orwell talked about it in 1984.
Hitler talked about it in Mein Kampf.
Chayefsky talked about it in Network.

I agree, it was just an interesting outlook from a kid.

Have you taught him how to think critically?

Critical thinking isn't always intuitive or natural.
It's a skill that has to be learned and refined and honed.

Same thing with objectivity.

Evaluating sources, comparing differing views, looking at situations without allowing your own prejudices too much influence (that's the hard one).

There are sources out there that are reasonably objective and trustworthy. Many agree that NPR (US) BBC (Britain) and Al Jazeera (UAE) are at or near the top of that list.

Yet when you read the same story on each of them, there's a slightly different spin. So they aren't perfect, and I don't know anyone who claims they are. Yet many of the detractors claim that their follower claim that.

The problem is that there are people out there who don't want the truth to be told. So they spread plausible lies. Partly to get their version of the story out there, but largely to make it harder and harder to ascertain the actual truth.

Sadly, the BBC appears to no longer be as trustworthy as it once was. What used to be the flagship of unbiased and fair reporting has become a propaganda mouthpiece for the right-wing conservative government, as evidenced by several recent incidents where the editorial team have been caught violating their own impartiality guidelines as laid down in the Royal Charter.

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[quade 3]

Phil1111

I'm not sure of the history but the Houthi Shia have the same narrative attached to every video and every attack Be it on Government, Saudi or US forces. When there is a video of a RPG attack on a Saudi tank they chant Death to America, Death to Israel, God is Great. Its as if the gunner was a Jew and the driver American, in a Saudi tank.

It could be that Iran supplies the ATGM and has instructions that the Saudi, gulf state co-coalition. Are really Israeli's in disguise using US equipment. For the benefit of Saudi royalty.

This one is pretty easy to understand.

Saudi Arabia is Sunni. The "King" of Saudi Arabia controls the government via it's very strict interpretation of the Sunni faction of the religion. KSA is a MAJOR funder of terrorist who attack any faction who isn't Sunni, for instance, Shia.

Since the US acts as a proxy for KSA in a number of military operations (okay, let's just flat out say it, we're mercenaries for them), it's perfectly understandable for pretty much anyone outside of KSA, but especially Shia to chant, "Death to America."

Attached is a map of the Middle East with areas shown of majority faction control. As you can see, it's a fucking mess, but general lines can be drawn around the major areas of who gets along with whom just based on the Sunni / Shia split.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Phil1111 911]

quade

***I'm not sure of the history but the Houthi Shia have the same narrative attached to every video and every attack Be it on Government, Saudi or US forces. When there is a video of a RPG attack on a Saudi tank they chant Death to America, Death to Israel, God is Great. Its as if the gunner was a Jew and the driver American, in a Saudi tank.

It could be that Iran supplies the ATGM and has instructions that the Saudi, gulf state co-coalition. Are really Israeli's in disguise using US equipment. For the benefit of Saudi royalty.

This one is pretty easy to understand.

Saudi Arabia is Sunni. The "King" of Saudi Arabia controls the government via it's very strict interpretation of the Sunni faction of the religion. KSA is a MAJOR funder of terrorist who attack any faction who isn't Sunni, for instance, Shia.

Since the US acts as a proxy for KSA in a number of military operations (okay, let's just flat out say it, we're mercenaries for them), it's perfectly understandable for pretty much anyone outside of KSA, but especially Shia to chant, "Death to America."

The US is actually involved in the coalition in the war in Yemen. USAF tankers are refueling Saudi F-15's en-route to Yemen. US advisors are helping the Saudi air force with air-tasking orders. Strike assessments and coordination with the sea and air campaigns.

The USN is helping with the naval blockade. Thats how the attack on a USN destroyer came about last year. How the USN came about destroying three Houthi rebel radar facilities.

I should have been clearer in my lack of understanding on how the Houthi's came to hate America and "the Jews". The Houthi's have gotten a bit of a bad deal. They, as typical in the middle east, were ignored and disadvantaged by the last government. A government that enjoyed US support. Because it was pro-Saudi, anti-Iran and presumably by those two factors, Sunni. That would make the Houthi, Shia. But there is more to the story than that.

The Houthi were happy to more or less mind their own business. Leaving the majority of Yemen to the Sunni, Al qaeda and the other Yemini tribes. Something got them armed by Iran and for some reason Iran opened the floodgates of weapons. It might have been typical Iranian meddling, er Hezbollah-Shia-Mullah desires to cause trouble in the Saudi Kingdom. Or something else.

But now the Houthi have every modern Iranian weapon. Iranian anti-ship, ATGM, surface and air radars. In addition to manpads which have shot down Saudi Apache helicopters. The Houthi rebels have invaded Saudi territory and shelled Saudi cities with long range Iranian surface to surface missiles. Some of which have been shot down by Patriot SAMs.

In any event the background narrative for Houthi tribesmen is Death to America, Death to Israel, etc. etc. Its like a chant. It not like Saudi,US built F-15 aircraft haven't dropped US built GPS guided bombs on markets. They have. Its not like Saudi F-15's haven't been refueled by USAF tankers on their way to bomb Houthi villages. They have.

But its Saudi and the UAE air forces primary at work. This is one version of the conflict.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32554955
and another
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015%E2%80%93present)

But for some reason the Houthi have walked away from two peace agreements. They have persisted in attempting to control areas of Yemen far beyond traditional tribal lands. Something is driving them in the face of serious opposition and bombing.

IMO Iran. Iran throwing the weapons floodgates open to punish the Saudi government.

[sonnyblu 0]

nigel99

Bearing in mind his main interest is nutrition and health I can see that for youngsters it must be truly confusing.

It's interesting how many people in this thread ignored this point and turned it into a political issue. It's not a political issue as much as it is capitalistic.

Of course a youngster is going to be confused about nutrition these days, are you kidding me? It's a typical case of "paralysis of analysis." The fact is that there are just too many facts that come in the form of pros and cons that make it almost impossible to weigh.

All companies have to do is focus on their own pros, while amplifying the cons of their competitors - and this goes back n' forth ad nauseam.

People lack attention to detail so they just absorb whatever confirms their own bias, and ignore the "alternative facts" (pros vs. cons) - much like politics.