Facts over Feelings is nonsense

[Consept]

If you say facts over feelings it gives the implication that you are completely unbiased and are able to take raw data and come to factual conclusions. As you can probably extrapolate this does not work, for one youd have to know every fact and every piece of data on the subject, then youd have to be able to weigh up all this information and come to a conclusion. Even if you did manage to do this you wouldnt be able to say that whatever conclusion you came to is definitive because new information could come about at any time. Even the studies that you might incorporate into your analysis are based on hypothesis which are based on the researchers feeling that something might be true or not and then that is proven either way, but there will be lots more hypotheses that may not be tested. 

I find people use it because they cherry pick one or some statistics that back their own 'feeling' about a particular subject of which they had already come to the conclusion on before finding out about the fact. The truth is oftentimes messy and not as easy as 'this is true because there are facts about it'. The statement is very simplistic and promotes black and white thinking without due regard for the obvious nuance in every subject.  

[Danioover9000]

@Consept

23 minutes ago, Consept said:

If you say facts over feelings it gives the implication that you are completely unbiased and are able to take raw data and come to factual conclusions. As you can probably extrapolate this does not work, for one youd have to know every fact and every piece of data on the subject, then youd have to be able to weigh up all this information and come to a conclusion. Even if you did manage to do this you wouldnt be able to say that whatever conclusion you came to is definitive because new information could come about at any time. Even the studies that you might incorporate into your analysis are based on hypothesis which are based on the researchers feeling that something might be true or not and then that is proven either way, but there will be lots more hypotheses that may not be tested. 

I find people use it because they cherry pick one or some statistics that back their own 'feeling' about a particular subject of which they had already come to the conclusion on before finding out about the fact. The truth is oftentimes messy and not as easy as 'this is true because there are facts about it'. The statement is very simplistic and promotes black and white thinking without due regard for the obvious nuance in every subject.  

   What do you mean when you say 'facts over feelings'?

   Why is it the implication that facts over feeling = complete unbias, take raw data derive factual conclusions? Are you referring to inferences and inductive reasoning?

   Why do I have to know every fact, every piece of data on the subject, weigh up these bits of facts and data to draw a conclusion?

   If I did manage to include all data and facts into a situation, then draw forth a conclusion, that still makes the conclusion not definitive, at all times?

   If researchers had limited time, and face an existential crisis, for example the pandemic and Covid-19, and had few facts of the virus via footages and reports from Wuhan China and Italy's hospital crisis within the first 6 months of the pandemic, then researchers are biased for rushing vaccine development and WHO suggesting to politicians to enforce Covid-19 lockdowns?

   Do you assume that cherry picking statistics based on intuition and feeling, mostly a negative? Why is selective bias to you evil and not the natural state of human beings, due to limited time, energy, and attention span?

   Do you also assume that prior hidden assumptions and presumptions of all situations, are bad? If so, what's the alternative, and how do we move forward?

    

[Danioover9000]

@Consept

1 hour ago, Consept said:

If you say facts over feelings it gives the implication that you are completely unbiased and are able to take raw data and come to factual conclusions. As you can probably extrapolate this does not work, for one youd have to know every fact and every piece of data on the subject, then youd have to be able to weigh up all this information and come to a conclusion. Even if you did manage to do this you wouldnt be able to say that whatever conclusion you came to is definitive because new information could come about at any time. Even the studies that you might incorporate into your analysis are based on hypothesis which are based on the researchers feeling that something might be true or not and then that is proven either way, but there will be lots more hypotheses that may not be tested. 

I find people use it because they cherry pick one or some statistics that back their own 'feeling' about a particular subject of which they had already come to the conclusion on before finding out about the fact. The truth is oftentimes messy and not as easy as 'this is true because there are facts about it'. The statement is very simplistic and promotes black and white thinking without due regard for the obvious nuance in every subject.  

   Also, which version of the 'facts over feelings' are you referring to? 

[Israfil]

The problem of underdetermination states that for any given set of evidence, there are multiple theories that fit the evidence.

Let's not even go into the possibility of a "fact" itself

[hyruga]

Yeah you can cherry pick any stats to suit your agenda.

For example, in football, you can easily find Harry Maguire made more forward passes than say Cristiano Ronaldo so Harry Maguire is more aggressive in attacking?

Edited May 18, 2023 by hyruga

[Danioover9000]

@Israfil

On 2023-05-16 at 3:45 AM, Israfil said:

The problem of underdetermination states that for any given set of evidence, there are multiple theories that fit the evidence.

Let's not even go into the possibility of a "fact" itself

   What is a 'fact'?

[Danioover9000]

@hyruga

On 2023-05-16 at 0:41 PM, hyruga said:

Yeah you can cherry pick any stats to suit hour agenda.

For example, on football, you can easily find Harry Maguire made more forward passes than say Cristiano Ronaldo so Harry Maguire is more aggressive in attacking?

   Cherry pick any stats to suit Hourly agenda? Does an agenda go per hour? Is it like Clockworks Orange?

Edited May 17, 2023 by Danioover9000

[Danioover9000]

   Here's where my crazy mind thinks about the facts over feelings, which is another interpretation: When a person says 'facts over feelings', I see a fraction, and the numerator which is part of the total is the 'facts', and the denominator which represents the total sum, is where the 'feelings' are placed, so to me it's crazy and highly hubris to claim facts are superior to feelings when facts are part of feelings. It's like the tip of the iceberg claiming it's superiority over the bottom dwellers, when in facts most of the iceberg's body is under water, and much bigger that it's tip.

[Israfil]

29 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

fact

Technically is a thing that is known or proven to be true. The possibility of knowledge or proof of statements is not epistemologically evident.

[trenton]

@Consept you are pointing out the core hypocrisy of people like Ben Shapiro.

The point of saying "facts don't care about your feelings" is to make yourself appear rational and intelligent. As Ben Shapiro ends his debates like this, he is covering the fact that he is constantly using dishonest debate tactics such as gish galloping and cherry picking while fear mongering about the left. His bad faith argument commonly boils down to "you're with the left" as a means of discrediting your position without taking it seriously.

None of these behaviors are rooted in facts but rather feelings. People become emotionally attached to the appearance of seeming rational or intelligent. This can be used to cover up their own insecurities about there emotions and how deeply it influences their worldview. It is like a rationalist who gets defensive and ideological about rationalism, but in doing so he becomes a hard headed false skeptic who thinks he's fighting for the truth, but really he is just entrenching himself in his misguided notions of truth seeking. He is locked in thinking, but discredits feelings as a valid means of truth seeking.

Remember, it is impossible for the human brain to think without emotions. Understanding this does not make you a baby or a snowflake. it actually makes you more rational by recognizing the limitations of human thought. So long as people like Ben Shapiro deny the extent to which their emotions are shaping his worldview, the more they will be locked into pseudo rationalism as they constantly struggle to make themselves appear intelligent while relying on dishonest debate tactics, allowing falsehood to win.

[Leo Gura]

Of course it's nonsense.

[Danioover9000]

@trenton

39 minutes ago, trenton said:

@Consept you are pointing out the core hypocrisy of people like Ben Shapiro.

The point of saying "facts don't care about your feelings" is to make yourself appear rational and intelligent. As Ben Shapiro ends his debates like this, he is covering the fact that he is constantly using dishonest debate tactics such as gish galloping and cherry picking while fear mongering about the left. His bad faith argument commonly boils down to "you're with the left" as a means of discrediting your position without taking it seriously.

None of these behaviors are rooted in facts but rather feelings. People become emotionally attached to the appearance of seeming rational or intelligent. This can be used to cover up their own insecurities about there emotions and how deeply it influences their worldview. It is like a rationalist who gets defensive and ideological about rationalism, but in doing so he becomes a hard headed false skeptic who thinks he's fighting for the truth, but really he is just entrenching himself in his misguided notions of truth seeking. He is locked in thinking, but discredits feelings as a valid means of truth seeking.

Remember, it is impossible for the human brain to think without emotions. Understanding this does not make you a baby or a snowflake. it actually makes you more rational by recognizing the limitations of human thought. So long as people like Ben Shapiro deny the extent to which their emotions are shaping his worldview, the more they will be locked into pseudo rationalism as they constantly struggle to make themselves appear intelligent while relying on dishonest debate tactics, allowing falsehood to win.

   EXACTLY! Thanks for communicating your insight in this way. Sometimes I momentarily get confused because every time a person says 'facts over feelings' and 'facts don't care about your feelings' it's strange because FACTS ARE PART OF FEELINGS! facts/feelings=facts are partial, feelings are total, so facts are in fact inferior to feelings! The only few conclusions that I can draw for why rationalists and logicians like Ben Shapiro are deeply in denial of this is: They misunderstand/don't know/are too self biased and preferential of reasoning and rationality despite SD stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality types/traits, states of being, life experiences and other lines of development, and other ideological indoctrinations and upbringings such that it distorts and shapes one's worldview as if it's superior than the other's, despite how relative those claims can be. So it has to be that they don't want to admit they're wrong, therefore justifying bad faith communications, tactics and fallacies instead of admitting wrongness and correcting themselves towards good faith communications.