Reading through a number of rather heated threads I notice a common clarion about being informed. So the question is, what exactly do people mean when they suggest that they are informed and that others should try to be informed?
Reading through a number of rather heated threads I notice a common clarion about being informed. So the question is, what exactly do people mean when they suggest that they are informed and that others should try to be informed?
Take the current Dobbs decision that is in the news. Many who are upset by the decision make claims about the Supreme Court "taking away women's right to choose", "outlawing abortion" among other things.
The decision does precisely one thing: It nullifies a previous decision. The result of that returns abortion law to the States, in accordance with the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. The original Roe decision (followed by Casey) is believed by some to provide a sort of carte blanche to any type of abortion - to include partial birth abortion. That wasn't true either, and an opinion expressed by the uninformed.
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
This is what I mean by being informed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent
Beowulf50 (July 21st, 2022)
I agree with TSherbs that "get informed" nearly always means "read more of the sources I prefer so that you will then agree with my opinion".
It is no small irony that this was written by one of the most prolific sharers of sources [really opinion pieces] they appear to prefer, but in fairness he does not demand anyone "get informed" by reading it.
A very few members mean it genuinely and literally. If one is going to opine in a thread, they should at least take some time to familiarize themselves with the reference included in an OP (which one often is). To "get informed" about the topic or aspect of a topic being offered for discussion.
If one is going to offer an opinion on a court decision, one should perhaps read the 1-2 page syllabus to "get informed" what the opinion of the court actually says, as opposed to adopting an erroneous view they derived from a similarly erroneous op-ed.
If one is going to opine on matters of fact, some basic understanding those facts - or to "get informed" - seems requisite; but instead they display their ignorance.
It's no wonder so many prove the aphorism that "Opinions are like buttholes - everybody has one.", and that "most of them stink".
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
I suppose you could take the notion to the absurd. No offering an opinion on an upcoming solar eclipse unless you are an astrophysicist, for example, but that's not really what I'm saying. I used phrases like: Some time to familarize. Perhaps read the syllabus of a decision. Basic understanding of facts.
I suppose I should have added something along the lines of giving a fair reading.
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
Ferchrissakes man, I'm not saying we need to be experts. There are plenty of things even the experts don't know. Hell, economists disagree on reasons for inflation.
I'm just saying, for example, if you want to weigh in on an abortion argument you might take a moment to check what the Mississippi law requires. 15 weeks. You might check what European laws are. 14 weeks in Belgium for "on request" abortions. 24 weeks in The Netherlands. Northern Ireland just allowed them in 2020 apparently, and 12 weeks is the standard. New Zealand? 20 weeks. That took me a couple of minutes. Instead (and I don't mean to pick on him), Linger posts something about "your daughters, sisters, mothers and wives have no right over their own body anymore".
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
How's about the climate change or vaccine "debates" by neither immunological not true climate researchers? Do laymen really think the casual and predictive climate models are so simplistic anyone can understand them with a few months of reading?
Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
Lloyd - of course not. Did I advocate anything resembling that in my earlier posts?
We can, of course, for those issues where the science is assuredly not settled, share and look at information provided by experts on both sides, who present it layman's terms. Jay Bhattacharya is an epidemiologist and professor of public health. He conducts interviews and writes on the subject, for us laymen. Jonathan Haidt is a PhD in psychology. He writes an editorial on his research, for us laymen.
This isn't a difficult idea, but for some reason you are jumping on the same bandwagon of the absurd.
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
I worked with a very bright engineer who alleged no climate change issue. He based it on his own analyses... which couldn't be as thorough as climatologists; I talked with him enough to know. In many fields, there are a handful that have a differing view. However, if the opposing view is very strong in the majority among those on the top ranks (not the talking heads), I'd put my money on that.
Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
Cholesterol levels and heart disease were correlated for decades. The famous Framingham study. The American Heart Association.
Wanna guess what a meta analysis of all the studies recently concluded?
Experts once said trans fats were healthy, and eggs were not. What’s today’s consensus? Want more? Electroshock therapy and lobotomies were treatments for mental disorders.
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
Nutritional science is barely a science when it comes to empirical observation based studies... especially when the studies were funded by food companies. Most forms of saturated fat (there's many more than one type) are still seen as likely problems.
Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
Decisions are written for citizens to be able to understand. No law background needed.
How does one do their research for a pen purchase?
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
The internet has this weird function most programmers are familiar with, where you can search for things and get an answer almost instantaneously. You have to read though, but then you’ll be informed.
click here
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
The link will remain, so you can inform yourself again, any time you like.
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
I read a lot on nutrition over many years and I'm married to a nurse practitioner. As your post demonstrates and even mentions, these hypotheses aren't the results of anything more than statistics based on subject stated diets and health reporting. This is far from most approaches in the science to acquiring knowledge.
Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
Bookmarks