Would "facts" change your mind?

[Wandering Monk]

Statistically its 50/50. However, the evidence of your previous 27 “heads” would suggest that another factor than ‘chance’ is at play. i.e. a trick coin, your technique in flipping, a ferrous metal coin and you have magnetic cuff-links on your shirt, etc...etc...

Or abnormal distribution on the bell curve which will return to the mean the more you flip the coin.

 

[Jim]

It looks to me like what people mean by “facts” in forum debating is “I think it’s okay for me to denounce and vilify anyone who disagrees with it, or depreciate their character and capacities.” I’m not sure exactly how that differs from “scientific consensus.” That might be my next line of investigation into how words are used in forum debating. Maybe “facts” is just the default when a person can’t think of anything better, or doesn’t want to bother with that.

 

[Jim]

Maybe “facts” is a more general form of excuses and camouflage for unloving attitudes and behavior, and “scientific consensus” is one kind of “facts,” for what a person is saying to look more ... more ... more “scientific.”

 

[Wandering Monk]

We need to start here:

Definition of FACT

When we use the word 'fact' we need to figure out which definition we are using. The common element of these definitions is the absence of subjectivity:

1: something that has actual existences: space exploration is now a fact
b: an actual occurrence: prove the fact of damage
2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality: These are the hard facts of the case.
3: the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY: a question of fact hinges on evidence
4: a thing done: such as

a: CRIME : accessory after the fact
b. archaic : ACTION
c. obsolete : FEAT

​

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Facts are only relevant to me if I'm need to take the right medication type of thing. Experiences, as long as they are healthy, would probably change my mind. If I had a good experience in one religion and had a more profound experience in another, I would go for the latter but still respect and keep the experiences of the former. [Which I do in real life]

I got this from taking the 16Personality test. I'm an ISFP. It was saying for us to make goals based on our experiences rather than facts loosely translated.

Which is interesting, too. I can learn the Dharma, scripture, whatever, all I want but if you want my mind to change I'd have to have a healthy profound experience.

The thing is, once we are stuck in something, we will -let ourselves- have new experiences to learn other things?

That's probably what I'd ask in relation to the OP.

And I am the polar opposite to you in all categories: ENTJ

 

[ChristineM]

We've seen them before: the questions like "atheists, would you change your mind and believe if there were proof of God," and the converse, and of course everybody answers in the affirmative. (After all, who would want to admit that facts don't mean a thing, and that they'll believe whatever they like no matter what the facts say.)

Same thing with the evolution arguments, the sexual orientation brouhahas, and so many others.

And yet, having read several score thousand such arguments here on RF and elsewhere, one of the things that I find most remarkable is how little all the back-and-forth arguments, no matter how well supported, actually make any dent at all in the opinions of the debaters. I have yet to see, in any such debate, one side or the other declare, "oh, that's a fact I didn't know, and it has made me reconsider."

Here's an article I found in the New Yorker that discusses this very issue. It shows that, "once formed" (as the authors drily remark) "impressions are remarkably perseverant."

So here's the real question: what, if anything, would really make you change your mind?

On another forum I have (with the aid of two other immigrants to RF) convinced a non believer to accept evolution.

What will always make me reconsider is evidence that has been independently verified. Then, if the evidence is compelling i must accept it.

 

[Earthtank]

@Evangelicalhumanist Yes, facts would change my mind

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

On another forum I have (with the aid of two other immigrants to RF) convinced a non believer to accept evolution.

What will always make me reconsider is evidence that has been independently verified. Then, if the evidence is compelling i must accept it.

Thank you!

I remember when I was much younger being tempted to believe in some fairly silly things, for which there were actual books containing claims of evidence and "proofs." One of these was Spontaneous Human Combustion, which I got from a fairly impressive-looking magazine of "Unexplained Phenomena." My response to this temptation was to go and try to find any evidence for or against that I could. In the end, it turns out that there are no cases in which the evidence for SHC is at all adequate, and that there were always more natural and plausible explanations available. As a consequence, I left that temptation to believe behind me.

 

[ChristineM]

Thank you!

I remember when I was much younger being tempted to believe in some fairly silly things, for which there were actual books containing claims of evidence and "proofs." One of these was Spontaneous Human Combustion, which I got from a fairly impressive-looking magazine of "Unexplained Phenomena." My response to this temptation was to go and try to find any evidence for or against that I could. In the end, it turns out that there are no cases in which the evidence for SHC is at all adequate, and that there were always more natural and plausible explanations available. As a consequence, I left that temptation to believe behind me.

An actor i know was offered a job on one of the ghost hunt programs. Being a believer in ghosts he took the job in the hope of actually seeing one for real rather than just on tv and video.

He turned up at the 'haunted' castle, was handed the script which he settled down to read. He upped and walked off the job when he saw the ghosts were scripted.

He is still a believer in ghosts despite the set back he suffered.

 

[Skwim]

We've seen them before: the questions like "atheists, would you change your mind and believe if there were proof of God," and the converse, and of course everybody answers in the affirmative. (After all, who would want to admit that facts don't mean a thing, and that they'll believe whatever they like no matter what the facts say.)

Same thing with the evolution arguments, the sexual orientation brouhahas, and so many others.

And yet, having read several score thousand such arguments here on RF and elsewhere, one of the things that I find most remarkable is how little all the back-and-forth arguments, no matter how well supported, actually make any dent at all in the opinions of the debaters. I have yet to see, in any such debate, one side or the other declare, "oh, that's a fact I didn't know, and it has made me reconsider."

Here's an article I found in the New Yorker that discusses this very issue. It shows that, "once formed" (as the authors drily remark) "impressions are remarkably perseverant."

So here's the real question: what, if anything, would really make you change your mind?

If there was a mind-changing fact and I recognized it as a fact.

I truly have no problem with changing my mind about X, Y, or Z.

.

.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If there was a mind-changing fact and I recognized it as a fact.

I truly have no problem with changing my mind about X, Y, or Z.

.

.

Thanks for your response.