Depends on the source and the weight of the claim. My fattest friend tells me the new Italian place slaps? Fact. The smartest person I know tells me there’s a newly discovered planet? Worth looking into if it comes from them, but I’m skeptical.
This is exactly how science works. It self corrects as new information becomes available.
when science backs it up.
Science rules!
What happens when “science” backs up two opposing ideas with sufficient evidence and logic to make either seem plausible?
Have you got an example?
Off the top of my head string theory is a good example of numerous competing hypothesis that seem plausible given the data.
Then the science isn’t done evaluating the opposing ideas. That’s the beauty of science, it can be proven wrong and still work.
How can Science be proven wrong and still work? That is not at all how Science works.
Yeh it is.
Proving that a scientific theory is wrong means we don’t understand enough about the thing. And we know we need to look at other theories about the thing.
Proving things wrong as well as failed hypothesis is as important (even if it is disappointing) as proving things correct and successful hypothesis. It rules the theory out, and guides further scientific study.
With published papers, other scientists can hopefully see what the publishing scientists missed.
Scientists can also repeat experiments of successful papers to confirm the papers conclusion, and perhaps even make further observations that can support further studies.You may want to read what I said and try again.
really depends on the source and if it makes sense in the first place.
It varies widely depending on a combination of whether it impacts me directly, whether it contradicts or is inconsistent with information I have already accepted as fact, and the source. The source includes being reliable and if the fact could be something that serves the source’s self interest as that would require corroboration.
Until recently, if NASA tells me their current data shows that black holes exist at the center of a galaxy I take their word for it. They have been consistently reliable for decades and their entire mission is about increasing knowledge and sharing it with the entire world. With recent administrative changes I am more skeptical and wouldn’t trust something that contradicts prior scientific discoveries without corroboration from an external agency like the European Space Agency. I would take the ESA at their word currently.
If a for profit company says anything I want corroboration from a neutral 3rd party. They have too much incentive to lie or mislead to be trusted on their own.
Something from a stranger that fits into prior knowledge might be accepted at face value or I might double check some other source. Depends on how important it is to me and whether believing that would lead to any obvious negative outcome. I will probably also double check if it is interesting enough to want to check, and I’ll use skepticism as an excuse.
That covers actual factual stuff that could possibly be corroborated by a third party. Facts like the Earth orbits the sun or Puerto Rico is a US territory type stuff.
Then there are other things that can be factual but difficult to determine and that is a combination of experience and current knowledge, plus whether believing it would be a benefit or negative. If someone tells me the ice isn’t thick enough based on their judgement I will treat it as a fact and not go out on it unless I had some reason not to believe them. If they told me apples were found to be unhealthy I would check other sources.
Thank you for such a detailed answer.
At least 4.
I’ll colloquially use the word “fact” for extremely well supported claims, but in my head the only actual “facts” are mathematical derivations. Evidence supports the veracity of a claim, and a claim with a lot of evidence gets a tentative place in my world model, but any of those claims can be refuted by sufficient counter-evidence
A couple kilobites, minimum.
It honestly depends more on the source to me. I’d like to claim to rely on data but life is short and there is no way I can verify even a fraction of all the truths I have come to accept.
Hume had something like the wise apportion their confidence to the evidence, and Carl Sagan’s extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence can apply. So if those are true the quality and type of data is going to depend on the claim of fact (friend says they bought a dog vs a dragon), and the amount of evidence depends on the claim and your general standard of evidence. If you’re lowering or raising your standards for a specific claim that’s usually going to mean there’s a bias for or against it.
tl;dr 42 pieces of data
It depends. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
A sufficient amount
Reading it once on social media
Yes, but only if it matches my current beliefs.
Hearing it in a YouTube short linked by a one day old account
I think this applies to vastly more of us than are comfortable admitting
When a lot of people who have nothing to do with each other say the same thing.
When people who dedicate their life to this one thing say the same.
When I can come to the same conclusion based on the reasoning behind it
When it is repeatable.
Then I going to accept it as a fact otherwise it is just something someone has said.
I’m not sure how I would even quantify this.
But I could qualify this: having a consensus across multiple trusted sources.
