I continue to despair for the human race. They seem incapable of distinguishing what is fact from what is inference. Yes – of course that is a generalisation. I can’t deal with each human – some 6 Billion of them! Get real.
If Joe says that Jane says – does it mean that Jane said what she is reported to have said? That’s as basic as it gets. It may be a fact that Joe reported on what Jane said. But it is not a fact that Jane said what is reported. This sort of thing causes
so many problems, that I can’t really go into it in sufficient depth. But the way the humans operate is that if Joe said that Jane said whatever, well Jane damn well said it! That’s plain dumb-ass!
If Joe is some person in high authority, it seems that his words carry such weight that they cause any report he makes to turn into the fact of what Jane said. That is plainly and grossly illogical.
What’s all this about? Well recently I came across a situation where Person X asserted that condition A met certain criteria. There was no observable evidence (by anybody) that condition A met the criteria? Why? Because the criteria were never declared – so how the devil is anybody to know what criteria were used? It will continue to escape me to my dying day!!
Person X then asserted that the criteria were widely known and available. So – I then beg for a copy of the criteria. But guess what. The criteria were never provided, after several polite requests. Well – it matters not how unlikeable I am as a person (just to keep that out of the equation). The issue is that if a person makes an assertion, it is for them to back it up. So – if they say ‘the criteria are widely known and available’ – where are the bleeding criteria?!! They were certainly not widely available from any internet search that I made. They were non-existent.
Then Person Y jumps to the rescue to say that Person Z pinched Person X’s criteria – I don’t give a monkeys about that. I’m totally not interested. Person Z has published some criteria which is available but I can’t know if they pinched it from Person X unless I see evidence for that. When I disagree with Person Y, on matters of fact or the non-existence of fact, guess what’s likely to happen next? Person Y is likely to think that I don’t trust them. That’s nonsense. I’m not interested in trust. I’m interested in Person X’s assertions! I’m not gonna get tangled with Y on X’s assertions. But you can’t stop people from being offended when no offence is meant. People will perceive what they want.
Person Y is allegiant to Person X – that’s fine. It doesn’t change the fact that X has made an assertion and has not been able to provide evidence to support the assertion. Evidence is a thing that everybody can see – it matters not whether they believe the evidence or whether it is believable. It matters not what the inferences are. It matters not who says what about the person making the assertion.
Facts are facts. They must be directly observable by everyone OR be a statement of truth. But each statement of truth must not be turned into inference and then to a ‘fact’. That’s not how fact is determined – that’s how so-called ‘Chinese whispers’ are made!