Problem: Alternative Facts or Poor Epistemology?
Facts are certainly part of the equation. In addition to facts, we could benefit from stronger epistemologies for determining how we define a truth or fact. The mechanisms many use for justified belief are not as sound as they could be. When people start using an epistemology based on things like reason, logic, evidence, skepticism, the scientific method, etc, then we can start talking about the truthfulness of falsifiable claims (i.e. "facts"). Unfortunately, many still rely on epistemologies based primarily on eye-witness testimony, personal experience, tribal norms, anecdotes, divine inspiration, etc. If they were to change epistemologies, it might also threaten other aspects of their worldview which is a very uncomfortable process.
Many modes of thinking are so different that it prevents people from having conversations where understanding about factual events can be determined and agreed on.
We need to fix our thinking in order to fix our world.
This here is a hard row to hoe.
They don't even teach logic in schools.
And a fact is whatever the teacher says.
Grammer, Logic and Rhetoric is the order of what was taught.
Today, schools are full of rhetoric, and nothing else.
They are teaching you what to think, and not how to think.
So, with most people, you can't even start to talk about epistemology, they don't even have the tools necessary to understand its pieces.
Indeed. Another reason we school our kids at home.
You're awesome @lukestokes! I love you input here on Steem.
Thank you! :)
Agree w the comments section here on this WRT the crap taught in schools.
They do not teach you how to think, just to spit out the statist propaganda shoved out on how to conform to the statist agenda w the indoctrinations.
Good post man.
Thanks Barry. :)
I appreciate you raising this topic!
Listening to almost any news story os frustrating because at least one assumption is demonstrably wrong or at least open to honest debate in every story even thougj ot is treated as ironclad fact.
Exactly. We can't trust any one news source. Everyone has to wake up to the fact that listening to one radio station or picking your favorite morning paper/evening news show is like picking which politician you want to listen to for the rest of your life. It just doesn't make any sense.
I personally read up on the news 1-2 times a week once things have calmed down and been ironed out by a few different media companies. Then I always compare at least 3 points of views and try to have a look at the source material itself. Anything less would be willful self deception on my part.
I like framing this as "willful self deception." Well said.
Such an important point to make. That's precisely it.
What are your thoughts on Karl Popper and critical rationalism?
Ah yes, I remember watching this one:
I'm not familiar with it. Where should I start? Sad not to see a School of Life video on him. I love their stuff for quick summaries.