Look no further than Deflategate to know People are ruled by Feelings over Facts

[RecoveringCowboy]

A couple of people controversial to some have remarked people these days are governed by feelings instead of facts or ideas. It's also a common Star Trek theme: emotions vs logic.

I've challenged some Hatriots to list teams with complaints of alleged cheating. It should be long, yet they are conspicuously silent on evidence, but rant endlessly.

On politics, sports, various hot topics, the common tactic is not providing proof, but punching buttons.

Sad.

 

[RecoveringCowboy]

I've challenged some Hatriots to list teams with complaints of alleged cheating. It should be long, yet they are conspicuously silent on evidence, but rant endlessly.

Breaking news: Hatriot attempted to respond to me....with a Twitter hashtag.

Like that's a source of facts.

 

[PATS16N0]

I agree but I hate the word "people" because it lacks accountability.

Americans are governed by feelings over facts, and they'll never make any attempt to fix it so long as they're told their stupidity represents the entire planet.

I've travelled to other nations. Some peoples are as mindless and stupid as we are, and some are, collectively, much wiser and less prone to being easily manipulated by morons on television with horrendous arguments that don't make any sense but manage to pull emotional strings by design.

 

[ChoWZa]

Deflategate is eerily similar to Michael Brown. It's more important what people wished had happened than what actually did.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

There was a study done once, can't remember now where I saw it. But it showed that if you asked how people came to believe something, they would say it was based on facts and not feelings like 90% of the time. If you ask them how the people that disagree with them came to believe something they will say it's because others are ruled by feelings.

This is true for everyone. So the people that disagree with you will say it's YOU who is being ruled by feelings. None of us think we are of course. Truth be told we don't know very many facts for sure without the aid of feelings.

Anyone ever seen an atom? Doubtful, but if someone told you they don't exist you would be willing to argue how stupid and dumb and illogical they are. They don't have facts! You haven't seen atoms, didn't discover them, don't analyze them, but to you (and me) they are facts. But where did your facts come from?

Somebody, or several people you TRUSTED told you about atoms. What's trust? It's a feeling. So we feel the person told us about atoms is telling the truth, and they feel the person who told them they aren't real is telling the truth. A huge percentage of our knowledge is not firsthand, it's based on believing others, trusting others. I believe Neptune is a planet, but I never checked to see if it's there.

Where am I going here? Feelings are not an extraneous piece of our reasoning, they are a vital method of discerning truth from fiction. There is still an objective truth, but why we believe what we believe and they believe what they believe is much more messy than we are logical and they are emotional. Patriots fans as a whole are likely no more logical than any other large group of people as a whole. So it's unlikely logic explains the difference in opinions.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Trust me, Neptune is there

 

[BradyManny]

Somebody, or several people you TRUSTED told you about atoms. What's trust? It's a feeling.

I have no doubt that many human beliefs are driven by feelings, but I think you've cited a poor example by referencing science, the one place where humans have worked their damn hardest to not allow their personal beliefs undermine their attempts in learning what we can about how reality presents itself to us.

We know atoms exist because scientists can produce experiments that they interpret as confirming atoms exist. We, as laypeople, then interpret that set of information - that some of the smartest people in the world have conducted experiments and opened up their methods to others to conduct experiments - to come to the same conclusion. That's not a feeling, it's an interpretation of data, not that different than what the scientists themselves are doing in some sense.

On the other hand, there are studies that demonstrate how flawed the foundation of people's political beliefs can be. I would go to that realm for a better example of what you are trying to suggest, IMO.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

You can also actually see Neptune in good binoculars or small amateur telescopes

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

I have no doubt that many human beliefs are driven by feelings, but I think you've cited a poor example by referencing science, the one place where humans have worked their damn hardest to not allow their personal beliefs undermine their attempts in learning what we can about how reality presents itself to us.

We know atoms exist because scientists can produce experiments that they interpret as confirming atoms exist. We, as laypeople, then interpret that set of information - that some of the smartest people in the world have conducted experiments and opened up their methods to others to conduct experiments - to come to the same conclusion.

That just means we trusted them to tell us the truth. I would bet if I asked a million people what test or experiments can even show that atoms exist maybe a handful would know, fewer would have actually seen any empirical evidence. This is true for most knowledge we have, whether anyone considers that knowledge "scientific" in nature or not. I could say we know Lysenkoism works because scientists produced evidence that it worked. That's what people thought at the time.

That's not a feeling, it's an interpretation of data, not that different than what the scientists themselves are doing in some sense.

How is me trusting that a scientist is telling the truth different than me trusting anyone else? That's not intepreting data at all. Unless I checked the experiment or observed it I'm still trusting them.

You're basically just saying you really, really, trust scientists therefore it's just as good as empirical evidence. At no point does trusting scientists cross into the realm of empirical evidence.

On the other hand, there are studies that demonstrate how flawed the foundation of people's political beliefs can be. I would go to that realm for a better example of what you are trying to suggest, IMO.

I don't see how this is related to what I said. I'm suggesting that the base of most people's knowledge, even scientific knowledge is not known to us empirically or scientifically. Even if the nature of the knowledge is scientific, the way you got to know it is not scientific, you didn't run the experiment, you trusted someone else did. That's the opposite of science really. It's necessary, but we are kidding ourselves if we think we are being scientific because we can recite scientific facts told to us.

 

[BradyManny]

You're basically just saying you really, really, trust scientists therefore it's just as good as empirical evidence. At no point does trusting scientists cross into the realm of empirical evidence.

No, of course it's not empirical, nor is it as good as empirical evidence. Fair point.

I don't see how this is related to what I said. I'm suggesting that the base of most people's knowledge, even scientific knowledge is not known to us empirically or scientifically.

No, it's not - and again I agree with that. But that's not what you said earlier, you said accepting the existence of atoms was based on feeling. I'm simply saying that the "feeling" you refer to is based on a process of interpreting the facts at hand and making a judgement, and it can be rational - i.e., scientists performed empirical tests and came to a consensus, therefore, I will accept it.

Even if the nature of the knowledge is scientific, the way you got to know it is not scientific, you didn't run the experiment, you trusted someone else did. That's the opposite of science really. It's necessary, but we are kidding ourselves if we think we are being scientific because we can recite scientific facts told to us.

Scientists themselves must accept scientific consensus and use that as a basis for their own scientific experiments and theories. If they did not, then no progress would be made in the field. In order to perform science, you must accept - and yes, recite - scientific facts that were told to you at some point in your learnings. That's education, without which science could not function. Should the folks at CERN have to re-produce an experiment by Rutherford before deciding whether to turn the collider on? No, science must build upon itself. Scientists & lay people alike have to process what information is available and decide what to do with it. Sometimes the process is more rational than others. But scientific consensus serves as the most practical form of evidence most people will have access to for many things. And I do think believing in say an atom, should not be lumped together or associated with less rational beliefs.

Whether feelings is involved in choosing to accept that consensus, honestly I find the question kind of uninteresting and vague - it's just a matter of how humans want to define and apply words. But I would not say my acceptance of the existence of atoms is based on "feeling" simply because I have not performed experiments demonstrating their existence.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

You can also actually see Neptune in good binoculars or small amateur telescopes

Maybe, I think you're underestimating the amount of base knowledge required to emperically confirm that statement. What most people do is look at a light in the sky at a spot somebody told them Neptune would be. If a scientist pointed you to Saturn and said that right there is Jupiter. Then you "know" you saw Jupiter.

To actually know you looked at the 8th planet from the sun you would need to have discerned almost all the lights in the sky from the others. Figured out which lights are orbiting the sun. Calculated which of those orbits is furthest from the sun and then looked at it.

Or you can just trust what somebody else says. But make no mistake, you weren't being scientific about how you got that knowledge if you trusted someone, even if the knowledge itself was scientific in nature. You trusted someone you felt was trustworthy (hypothetically, maybe you actually did the observations and calculations, or maybe you did some observations and some trusting).

This is just a point about how people understand things. It's mental masturbation to just say everyone else is being emotional, just using their feelings but Boston is filled with a bunch of logic-bots.

 

[NE_Zealot]

 

[pdangle]

You can also actually see Neptune in good binoculars or small amateur telescopes

So you tell me.

 

[Mountain_Commando]

How about Uranus?

 

[BradyManny]

Or you can just trust what somebody else says. But make no mistake, you weren't being scientific about how you got that knowledge if you trusted someone, even if the knowledge itself was scientific in nature. You trusted someone you felt was trustworthy (hypothetically, maybe you actually did the observations and calculations, or maybe you did some observations and some trusting).

Science is built layer by layer. If each layer had to be re-proven empirically by the next generation, we wouldn't have progressed very far. Certainly some of the biggest advancements in science have come when [often young] scientists have questioned what was previously accepted, a young Einstein being the least conformist of them all, but that does not undermine the point that learning & education does involve an evaluation and/or acceptance of things considered to be true. And I wouldn't put that in the emotion or irrational category. Why is trust an emotion? Doesn't the observer need to trust his/her apparatus? Or a theorist need to trust his/her calculations & his/her mathematics (in the case of a physicist, perhaps using math that a mathematician previously proved, but he/she did not have to prove so rigorously)? I think it becomes too messy to try & define these things so black & white.

This is just a point about how people understand things. It's mental masturbation to just say everyone else is being emotional, just using their feelings but Boston is filled with a bunch of logic-bots.

No, but naturally a disproportionate amount of people in this area and our fan base are going to take the time to learn as much about deflate-gate. And the more you learn, the more likely you are to have a justifiable opinion. On the other side, it's very convenient for our detractors to take things at first glance and assume we cheated. It makes them feel good to consider us cheaters.

 

[PatriotsReign]

A couple of people controversial to some have remarked people these days are governed by feelings instead of facts or ideas. It's also a common Star Trek theme: emotions vs logic.

I've challenged some Hatriots to list teams with complaints of alleged cheating. It should be long, yet they are conspicuously silent on evidence, but rant endlessly.

On politics, sports, various hot topics, the common tactic is not providing proof, but punching buttons.

Sad.

You're right, this entire fiasco reminds me of our current political polarization. I understand sports and emotion....not so much politics.

 

[PatriotsReign]

There was a study done once, can't remember now where I saw it. But it showed that if you asked how people came to believe something, they would say it was based on facts and not feelings like 90% of the time. If you ask them how the people that disagree with them came to believe something they will say it's because others are ruled by feelings.

This is true for everyone. So the people that disagree with you will say it's YOU who is being ruled by feelings. None of us think we are of course. Truth be told we don't know very many facts for sure without the aid of feelings.

Anyone ever seen an atom? Doubtful, but if someone told you they don't exist you would be willing to argue how stupid and dumb and illogical they are. They don't have facts! You haven't seen atoms, didn't discover them, don't analyze them, but to you (and me) they are facts. But where did your facts come from?

Somebody, or several people you TRUSTED told you about atoms. What's trust? It's a feeling. So we feel the person told us about atoms is telling the truth, and they feel the person who told them they aren't real is telling the truth. A huge percentage of our knowledge is not firsthand, it's based on believing others, trusting others. I believe Neptune is a planet, but I never checked to see if it's there.

Where am I going here? Feelings are not an extraneous piece of our reasoning, they are a vital method of discerning truth from fiction. There is still an objective truth, but why we believe what we believe and they believe what they believe is much more messy than we are logical and they are emotional. Patriots fans as a whole are likely no more logical than any other large group of people as a whole. So it's unlikely logic explains the difference in opinions.

God told me you're wrong!

Actually, very nice post and I agree with you....I just don't know why.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Maybe, I think you're underestimating the amount of base knowledge required to emperically confirm that statement. What most people do is look at a light in the sky at a spot somebody told them Neptune would be. If a scientist pointed you to Saturn and said that right there is Jupiter. Then you "know" you saw Jupiter.

To actually know you looked at the 8th planet from the sun you would need to have discerned almost all the lights in the sky from the others. Figured out which lights are orbiting the sun. Calculated which of those orbits is furthest from the sun and then looked at it.

Or you can just trust what somebody else says. But make no mistake, you weren't being scientific about how you got that knowledge if you trusted someone, even if the knowledge itself was scientific in nature. You trusted someone you felt was trustworthy (hypothetically, maybe you actually did the observations and calculations, or maybe you did some observations and some trusting).

This is just a point about how people understand things. It's mental masturbation to just say everyone else is being emotional, just using their feelings but Boston is filled with a bunch of logic-bots.

Uncle Bob....lay off the shrooms buddy!

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

You're right, this entire fiasco reminds me of our current political polarization. I understand sports and emotion....not so much politics.

Yes, but here's the thing. Everyone of all political persuasions on this board agrees the evidence suggests they didn't cheat. If emotions ruled political ideas, then we should either all be split on whether the Patriots cheated, or we all magically learned to control our emotions.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Yes, but here's the thing. Everyone of all political persuasions on this board agrees the evidence suggests they didn't cheat. If emotions ruled political ideas, then we should either all be split on whether the Patriots cheated, or we all magically learned to control our emotions.

I'm guessing you enjoyed taking that course in philosophy way back when?!!