Facts versus opinions and values. A primer for a post-fact society.

3. Facts are independent of other facts. If the evidence shows the government lied about one thing, it means that one thing is false. It doesn't disprove anything else. Facts can't be used to confirm an umbrella narrative.

Facts are facts.
Conclusions are not facts.
Assumptions are not facts.

Both of the facts you list can be true. If you are having a fact-based discussion, both facts are valid. You shouldn't reject either of these facts no matter what your ideological narrative is. That is the point.

This thread is about facts. Facts don't depend on on conclusions. The conclusion you reach doesn't affect the facts at all (and if it does, than your "facts" aren't facts).

If you are simply saying that people should accept all of the facts no matter which political camp they come from or which ideological narrative they fit or don't fit....

... that is exactly my point. Facts are facts.

The problem I see is that people get confused between conclusions and facts. This makes having any type of factual discussion nearly impossible.

3) Your example; the premise that taxing CO2 reduces CO2 emission counts as a hypothesis I think. It becomes a fact when we test this premise. We can get real data about the effects of policy on CO2 emissions. This is a good example where the premise can be supported or refuted by real data.

4) My call is for people to start with the facts, and to accept it when there are facts that support the other side of an issue. I would like to have more fact based discussions and policy.

Instead, you want them to admit when something is true/valid/factual and then make a case based on what they accept to be true.

If you want this, then you have to also be open to multiple perspectives on the same facts. If you want people's honest opinions/analysis, you should not think that proving or disproving certain facts forces them into a position.

1. I am proposing that people in on opposite sides of an argument should work to find a set of core facts where they agree. I am proposing that each side propose 3-5 facts they think are important... and the other side should say clearly "accept" or "reject".

The goal of both sides during this process should be to find agreement. The side benefit is that it gets each side to understand the points of the other side in a non-combative way.

The statement "abortion causes harm to women" is a conclusion (not a fact). It is too vague to be testable, the word "harm" can mean anything and has to do with values and cultural assumptions.

A factual claim would be "women who have an abortion are 2 times more likely to develop migraine headaches." (just an example I made up, I am not making this claim). But... in this case you can do real research and come up with a factual answer based on the evidence as to whether this claim is factually true or not.

I think the problem you would run into is that is one person says they "accept" a fact unconditionally, their opponent will then use their acceptance to goad them to accept conclusions which they have reasons follow inevitably from the fact.

Quote:

I think the problem you would run into is that is one person says they "accept" a fact unconditionally, their opponent will then use their acceptance to goad them to accept conclusions which they have reasons follow inevitably from the fact.

I disagree with this; it implies that the goal of an argument is to defeat an "opponent" rather than to reach an understanding based on facts. If you and I can start from a place of agreement on basic facts, then where we disagree we can discuss the important points rather than just looking to attack.

I agree with you about combative attitudes. I am proposing a process of seeking a set of common accepted facts, and then using these to explore differences in perspective.

Circumstantial evidence is any evidence that requires some reasoning or inference in order to prove a fact. This type of evidence is sometimes referred to as “indirect evidence,” and it may have more than one explanation or lead to more than one conclusion. In many situations, more than one piece of circumstantial evidence may be used to draw the judge or jury to a specific conclusion. To explore this concept, consider the circumstantial evidence definition.

Definition of Circumstantial Evidence

Noun
1.Proof of facts offered as evidence from which other facts may be inferred.

What is Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence is evidence which strongly suggests something, but does not exactly prove it. Circumstantial evidence simply helps people draw inferences about a fact, or the events that took place. This type of evidence is, on its own, considered to be weak or ineffective, so it is used in conjunction with direct evidence in both criminal and civil cases. Whether or not the judge or jury makes the intended inference has a major impact on the outcome of the case.

For example:

Mary testifies in court that she saw Robert standing over a man with a bloody knife in his hand. Mary did not see Robert stab the victim, so she can only testify and describe what she saw. This circumstantial evidence is likely not enough by itself to convict Robert, so the prosecution provides other evidence which, when added to Mary’s testimony, leads the jury to the conclusion that Robert stabbed the victim.

Validity of Circumstantial Evidence

There are popular misconceptions surrounding the validity of circumstantial evidence, as many people believe it is not as convincing as direct evidence. In reality, circumstantial evidence is an important tool used by prosecutors to convict people. Circumstantial evidence, which can be derived from a variety of sources, can be used to lay a foundation of belief, and backed up by witness testimony and direct evidence for credibility.

Examples of Circumstantial Evidence

Nearly anything can be used as circumstantial evidence, so long as it helps create a picture of the incident or crime, leading the judge or jury to a valid conclusion. Facts that do not necessarily prove a defendant’s culpability, such as prior threats made to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, testimony that a neighbor saw the defendant in the neighborhood, or the fact that the defendant was the beneficiary of the victim’s life insurance policy, are all circumstantial evidence. Even in the absence of an eye witness to the crime, these pieces of evidence, when taken together, certainly lead to the conclusion that the accused is guilty.

For example:

Mark and Bob get into a heated argument, during which Mark declares in front of a room full of people, that he wanted to kill Bob. A week later, Bob is found murdered in his back yard. Mark’s declaration is not direct evidence that he committed the crime, but it gives police a suspect.

How an individual treated or interacted with the victim before the crime is another point that may be used as circumstantial evidence.

For example:

Helen, one of Bob’s coworkers, has been romantically obsessed with Bob for about a year. A few months ago, she began sending him unwanted emails and text messages containing romantic messages, and then gifts began showing up at his home. Bob asked Helen to stop, but she only stopped talking to him at work. Recently, Bob told a friend that he had seen Helen at his softball games, and once saw her following him at the mall. This information is not direct evidence that Helen murdered Bob, but it gives police a second suspect to investigate.

In a civil lawsuit, circumstantial evidence serves the same purpose, to lead the judge or jury to a desired conclusion.

For example:

Leo has filed a civil lawsuit against Fred, claiming that Fred backed into his car in a parking lot, causing substantial damage. In court, Fred admits to being in the parking lot at the same time as Leo, but denies he hit anything, and there were no other witnesses to the incident. Leo presents photos of the parking lot, with a diagram of how the accident occurred, and shows photos of the damage to both vehicles, and points out the red paint transfer from his car to Leo’s bumper.

While none of this is direct evidence of Fred’s culpability in the incident, the circumstantial evidence leads the judge to believe it is more likely than not that there was an accident, and that it was Fred’s fault.