Mom Confessions

https://thehill.com/changing-america/en ... UvSbxp_6R4

“The capacity to differentiate between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact is vital for citizens to manage the flood of political information they receive on any given day,” Mondak said in a statement.

“How can you have productive discourse about issues if you’re not only disagreeing on a basic set of facts, but you’re also disagreeing on the more fundamental nature of what a fact itself is?”

"But partisan bias, or wrong answers stemming from choosing a response that aligns with their political affiliation, did not.

And partisan bias played a strong role in the root cause of error, the researchers said."

I Fully agree with that title…

Not shocked whatsoever.

It shows in the responses we see everywhere on social media and even reporting of the news.

It's hard for me to trust what I read anymore.

"Finding 3: Affective partisan polarization produces systematic partisan error in fact-opinion differentiation.

Affective partisan polarization was operationalized as the difference in average feeling thermometer scores for Democrats (Obama, H. Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer) and Republicans (Trump, Pence, Cruz, McConnell), with separate 0 to 100 variables used to represent pro-Democratic and pro-Republican polarization. Figure 2 shows that partisan polarization leads individuals to assess political statements differently depending upon whether the statements align with partisan preferences. For biased partisans, the tendency is to perceive statements amenable to their political interests as statements of fact and claims inconsistent with their interests as statements of opinion (the red lines, denoting partisan error, slope significantly upward as affective partisan polarization increases). This effect is more pronounced for Republicans than for Democrats. Moreover, increasing levels of affective partisan polarization decrease accurate responses only for Republicans."
https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/a ... entiation/

jessilin0113 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 7:57 pm “How can you have productive discourse about issues if you’re not only disagreeing on a basic set of facts, but you’re also disagreeing on the more fundamental nature of what a fact itself is?”

In science:

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.


In law:

A thing done; an action performed or an Incident transpiring; an event or circumstance; an actual occurrence. In the earlier days of the law “fact” was used almost exclusively in the sense of “action”or “deed;” but, although this usage survives, in some such phrases as “accessary before the fact,” it lias now acquired the broader meaning given above.A fact is either a state of things, that is, an existence, or a motion, that is, an event.1 Benth. Jud. Ev. 48.In the law of evidence. A circumstance, event or occurrence as it actually takes or took place; a physical object or appearance, as it actually exists or existed. An actual and absolute reality, as distinguished from mere supposition or opinion; a truth, as distinguished from fiction or error. Burrill, Circ. Ev. 218.”Fact” is very frequently used in opposition or contrast to “law.” Thus, questions offact are for the jury ; questions of law for the court. (SOURCE)

fact n

[Latin factum deed, real happening, something done, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere to do, make]
1 : something that has actual existence
: a matter of objective reality
2 : any of the circumstances of a case that exist or are alleged to exist in reality
: a thing whose actual occurrence or existence is to be determined by the evidence presented at trial see also finding of fact at finding, judicial notice question of fact at question, trier of fact compare law, opinion

adjudicative fact
: a fact particularly related to the parties to an esp. administrative proceeding compare legislative fact in this entry

collateral fact
: a fact that has no direct relation to or immediate bearing on the case or matter in question compare material fact in this entry

constitutional fact
: a fact that relates to the determination of a constitutional issue (as violation of a constitutional right) used esp. of administrative findings of fact

evidentiary fact
: a fact that is part of the situation from which a case arises and that is established by testimony or other evidence called also mediate fact predicate fact compare ultimate fact in this entry

legislative fact
: a fact of general social, economic, or scientific relevance that does not change from case to case compare adjudicative fact in this entry

material fact
: a fact that affects decision making: as
a : a fact upon which the outcome of all or part of a lawsuit depends
b : a fact that would influence a reasonable person under the circumstances in making an investment decision (as in purchasing a security or voting for a corporate officer or action)

mediate fact
: evidentiary fact in this entry

predicate fact
: evidentiary fact in this entry

ul·ti·mate fact
[əl-ti-mət-]
: a conclusion of law or esp. mixed fact and law that is necessary to the determination of issues in a case and that is established by evidentiary facts compare evidentiary fact in this entry

in fact
: as a factual matter
: established by fact rather than as a matter of law
(SOURCE)


Incident, act, event, or circumstance. A fact is something that has already been done or an action in process. It is an event that has definitely and actually taken place, and is distinguishable from a suspicion, innuendo, or supposition. A fact is a truth as opposed to fiction or mistake.
(SOURCE)

Della wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 8:04 pm "But partisan bias, or wrong answers stemming from choosing a response that aligns with their political affiliation, did not.

And partisan bias played a strong role in the root cause of error, the researchers said."

That’s not surprising at all.

People who use personal feelings to determine truth more likely to believe conspiracies - study

https://www.jpost.com/science/article-758231

Della wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 6:57 pm People who use personal feelings to determine truth more likely to believe conspiracies - study

https://www.jpost.com/science/article-758231

I love the paper's actual title:

"Misperceptions in a post-truth world: Effects of subjectivism and cultural relativism on bullshit receptivity and conspiracist ideation"

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2023.104394

Highlights

• We find two forms of truth relativism: subjectivism and cultural relativism.

• Subjectivism yields higher receptivity to misinformation than cultural relativism.

• Subjectivism predicts receptivity to misinformation over and above other predictors.

• Cultural relativism is positively related to bullshit receptivity.

Types of truth relativism

There are different forms of truth relativism. Cultural relativism is the belief that truth-values depend on cultural or societal perspectives. This means that beliefs in different cultural contexts can be true at the same time even when they seemingly contradict each other. In other words, if different groups or cultures have disparate views on a factual matter (e.g., the Big Bang), a cultural relativist could argue that both perspectives are equally true; not just equally valid as views that should be respected or tolerated but equally true. By contrast, subjectivism is the belief that truth-values depend on people’s subjective mental lives. That is, if a person believes, feels, or intuits that something is true, then it is true. This means that the truth-value of a statement lacks connection to the world outside of the individual. While the cultural relativist positions truth in the convictions or epistemic norms that social groups have reached consensus on, the subjectivist places truth in each and every individual’s personal belief. In other words, there are potentially as many truths about a factual matter as there are people on earth.

This distinction between cultural and subjectivist forms of truth relativism has great theoretical relevance. In particular, it may entail a substantial difference in receptivity to misinformation. The subjectivist’s emphasis on personal intuition could yield a vulnerability to seductive narratives devised to evoke feelings rather than provide accurate accounts of reality. On classical dual process accounts (e.g., Kahneman, 2011, Stanovich and West, 1998), cognitive biases and errors are increased by intuitive thinking and spontaneous responses. Consistent with these accounts, faith in intuition for facts, which was intended to measure the inclination to determine accuracy in terms of whether something feels right in the study by Garrett and Weeks (2017), predicted greater receptivity to misinformation. This result is in line with previous research on the role of intuitive thinking in susceptibility to false beliefs (Bensley et al., 2014, Erceg et al., 2020, Evans et al., 2020, Sterling et al., 2016, Tomljenovic et al., 2019). Receptivity to misinformation may not be as pervasive among cultural relativists insofar as their beliefs are constrained by widely shared cultural convictions and therefore less amenable to subjective intuition. Furthermore, the likelihood of rejecting false beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence is plausibly lower among subjectivists. According to motivated reasoning accounts (e.g., Kunda, 1990), the human tendency to prefer information that fits with their preconceptions is only overridden through an active motivation to thwart gut reactions (e.g., Pennycook et al., 2021). This motivation may matter little to subjectivists, who think that accuracy can be gauged in terms of their subjective feelings. By contrast, the cultural relativist’s willingness to acknowledge different cultural perspectives may to some extent reflect intellectual humility, which is associated with openness and tolerance, as well as an awareness of the fallibility of personal beliefs (Leary et al., 2017).