Lies, more effective than facts they are.
i’m guessing it’s a double bluff?
i don’t follow American politics, but from this board i figure that Fox is mostly preaching to the choir and isn’t fooling anyone else. or have i been misled?
One man’s lie is another’s exageration or hyperbole. And one man’s signficant misrepresentaton of the facts is another’s misstatement-of-insignificant-details-with-the-big-picture-unchanged.
Which side tells more lies is not something that lends itself to objective measurement, IMO.
Yes and no. Fox news tends to be unabashedly conservative, when most media outlets tend to be shyly liberal. These two things are actually unrelated: they’re scrappy and they’re conservative. However, they do deal in original reporting and take potshots at people other media groups leave alone.
I don’t particularly watch Fox news - or for that matter CNN or MSNBC, butgenerally I don’t find that much difference between them. Fox, in the grand old American tradition, is obviously biased, as opposed to be biased and dishonest.
The evidence does show that Fox is both biased and dishonest.
In the latest Climate Crock of the week we see that Fox business (that is supposed to be more serious than their blatantly opinion shows) relied on denialist sources to tell their viewers once again the idea that there is no danger posed by global warming made by human activities. In this case they grabbed the once again debunked idea that cosmic rays would increase the good kind of clouds that would cool the atmosphere, but the research that Fox claims supports their say so does not say that.
After several years of this behavior, regarding this very important issue for the future of humanity, it is really a stretch to claim that FOX news is not dishonest also.
[cancelled]
But, just if someone gets the impression I completely agree with the OP, I have to clarify that truth can compete and eventually win against lies. History and research tell us that at the beginning lies can have the upper hand, but eventually truth comes forward, one pertinent example I noticed, also coming from the climate science struggles, regarding lies of omission and censorship:
The most likely reason for the original censorship and omission, as the Texas commission really never gave a good reason why they attempted to censor this, was politics; and as Rick Perry appoints the TCEQ, one does not need to be a genius to see why this censorship of science incident took place.
Lies are more convincing than facts because the facts are often incredible by comparison.
Well, that’s what he literally said, but don’t take it at face value. It’s satire. A critique. But I guess I should let him speak for himself.
If it was a pipeline bill that Democrats attached a tax cut rider to then you would have a point. But it’s a tax cut bill that the Republicans attached a pipeline rider to. The rider is what’s holding things up. Both sides agree on the tax cut. So yeah, it’s the GOP that are obstructing the tax cut. You have a point that it takes two sides to disagree but in this case clearly one side is far less willing to compromise.
While I agree with many of the points the OP mentions, I cannot agree with the conclusion. A lie will only win over the truth if it offers something that the truth does not. In most cases, particularly with politics, this results from things like confirmation bias or simply the truth being unpleasant.
To use a non-political example, imagine you go out on a date, you think it goes well, but she doesn’t return your follow up call. One of your friends says something along the lines that obviously she didn’t know how good you were or was intimidated by your intellect or was insecure or something like that, and another friend tells you that maybe she wasn’t attracted to you or that maybe you said something offensive or whatever. In most cases, you WANT to hear the flattering reason, not the unflattering one; the potential truth value isn’t really relevant.
And so when it comes to politics, people tend to have established beliefs and they will accept things that go along with them and reject things that don’t. A lot of the chain e-mails, from both ends of the political perspective, are often filled with a lot of poorly researched “facts” because, well, they fit with their perspective, so they’re “obviously” true. Seriously, if you tell someone with an ego that they’re good at something, they’re not going to look for a second opinion, they’ll just accept it as true. And so when people start bringing things into question, that’s when all that fact checking comes into play and all perspective is lost.
The answer isn’t for whoever thinks the otherside is lying more often and/or more successfully, but to find effective ways to communicate truth in a way that helps circumvent that natural reaction. After all, a pleasant truth will likely be accepted as well as a pleasant untruth.
That’s not an answer. Sometimes the unpleasantness is not the communication, but the facts themselves.
Suppose - for example - that the truth is that the only way the US can avoid massive economic collapse is to raise taxes significantly. That would be an unpleasant truth. The pleasant untruth is that we do not have to raise taxes. Now you have two politicians campaigning for office. One tells the unpleasant truth and the other tells the pleasant untruth. Which one will win?
Now, if the unpleasant truth is blatantly obvious - or can be made so - then the unpleasant truth will win out. But this is rarely the case. In the vast majority of issues under discussion, there will be enough argument/counter-argument, facts and figures, statistical jive and simplistic slogans such that the issue will be clouded to the extent that the pleasant/unpleasant aspect becomes a significant factor.
That’s the main reason all politicians are liars. If they didn’t lie then they wouldn’t get elected. This is a motivation for otherwise honest people to lie when in politics, and it also has the effect of weeding those who do not give in to the temptation to lie out of the political system.
facts are something that are backed by the physical world
lies are something that are not backed by the physical world.
However, I have come to the conclusion that facts do not exist. Yes there are things in the physical world that exists (i.e. lamp, bed, tv, etc) but how one interprets such things determine if facts exist or not.
For example, let’s assume there is a robber. 10 individuals saw him and all could or could not identify him. How ask what color shirt, pants, hat, etc he was wearing, we would probably get 10 different answers.
Furthermore, not all individuals are gifted with a large vocabulary.
Facts are absolute truths. But our interpretation and verbal skills prevent facts from being whole.
It is my opinion that facts do not exist. Rather, half-truth and lies exist.
So in this sense, wouldn’t there be half-lies as well? Someone who saw a “thing” but decided to make up the rest
Well, before going down in flames in a mass of Postmodernism, I have to let you know that you are actually describing what science is nowadays, when one presses the point it is very clear that science does deal with probabilities, it just so happens that for practical purposes we have to follow what is the most likely outcome recommended by scientists or experts in the field.
For practical purposes then we also do declare several items to be the truth, like Tim Minchin said,
[some lyrics NSFW]
And that is because in all likelihood you will end up on the concrete floor.
but if we are searchers of truth, shouldn’t we disregard any lies or half-truths/lies?
Or do we search for the truth using a set of assumed lies/half-truths/half-lies? For if we search the truth that way, how can we ever determine if something is the truth or not? If we are already blinding yourselves with lies being truths, how can we determine true truths from the rest.
When Wegener proposed his continental drift theory he was grossly wrong on the mechanics of it, but because he was correct on the basic idea, that continents move and change shape he got the glory. So no, even half-truths (and I concentrate on scientific items that were shown to be false later) have a reason for being as they are a lesson on what not to do and many times, after the error is spotted, can lead to unexpected results, like the 3M technician that found that the new glue they developed was demonstrated to be a failure, but the Post-it notes that came from that were a success.
Then we just walk from the second floor window while declaring that there are no laws of gravity… well, we do not need to, as many already searched for the truth of that.
the second sentence is what I’m getting at. We walk on the ground but why are we not floating? Some scientists argued that its gravity. Some argues that it’s electromagnetic forces holding us to the earth. This is what I mean by same fact, different interpretation
so who’s right? I would assume the former but I can’t discredit the latter for they might be right in the future.
1 case (us standing on the ground), 2 theories. Thus we have “half-truths.” There are facts to support both but we can’t really determine who’s right or wrong. But then again I might be going a bit too postmodernism
Not always. In one point of view, sometimes things that we refer to as “facts” are really just ideas that are mutually agreed upon. Or rather, they are ideas that have reached a threshold for acceptance in one way or another. In this regard, they’re social constructions. This happens even in scientific research, because all observation is mediated in some way, and all measurement must be recorded by people in order to be conveyed to others. So the “factness” of any idea is shaped and/or confined by these processes of mediation and recording.
There’s a well-known book (Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts) which uses a lengthy observation of the work done at the Salk Institute to present this point of view.
if that’s true then would the logic be that lies are ideas that have not yet been agreed upon?
For practical purposes, a distinction without a difference. I’ll let physicists deal with that, in the meantime I do not step out of buildings from the second floor and up.