oracledba.help
Articles

How to Find the Truth

<- Articles

Overview

Seemed appropriate that I contribute something to this topic as some organizations don't want you to know that finding the truth is easy. "Truth" in the context I am using it means: getting the most accurate take on an event or topic.

Objectivity: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. -merriam-webster.com

Finding the truth requires two things:

  1. Multiple sources.
  2. Diverse sources.

These can give you real objectivity. So acquiring objectivity is critical to see the truth in anything. Comparatively, people that believe in conspiracy theories tend to lack objectivity.

Truth Fun Facts

  • If you only use one source it could be skewed.
  • If your sources are not diverse they could be biased in one way or another.
  • If you only use sources you agree with - it is the same as only using one source.
  • Having multiple and diverse sources gives you greater objectivity.
  • Media that do not provide the sources for their content cannot be trusted. Even if they have the word "news" in their title.

You might find the Bonus Material section useful too.

Inaction vs. Ignorance

Many politicians feel you are too ignorant to take the time to see things as they are. They think you would rather be handed what to think from a single jaded source. Is this truth stuff too much work?

Actually it is really easy!

  1. Use the Media Bias Chart to create links to multiple and diverse news sources.
  2. Review news stories from all points of view using your news links.

Adjust your links from time-to-time to ensure your sources are current.

Media Bias Chart

BEFORE you criticize them why don't you visit them and get to know who and what they are. They are real people you can actually contact and talk to not some monolithic agency pushing some point of view. If you find other sources that prove to be factual other than the Media Bias Chart use those too.

Watching sources you may not agree with makes you smarter. Fox News examples: 1 2 3 4 5 6.
Same can be true of any source that is extreme left or right.

Reality Readjustment

Some topics to see the truth on might be:

  • Voter Suppression
  • 2020 Presidential Election Results
  • Qualified Immunity
  • COVID-19
  • Mueller Report

I actually took the time to read the Mueller Report. When you do things like this you can clearly see what sources and politicians want you to think vs. the facts.

Journalist Reality Check

Armed with truth you may find:

  • The majority of legit journalist did not spend gargantuan time, effort and assets getting a degree only to report misinformation for a living. That was not their life's dream.
  • Only those that don't want the truth about them reported, are threatened by journalist and news agencies.

Again, dont take my word for it. Commit yourself to truth by using these principles and see if you find the same.

Pertinent Quotes

  • "He who has nothing to hide hides nothing."
  • "If you listen to sources on the other side you will learn facts that have been kept from you."

Summary

Armed with this basic but ruthlessly potent knowledge, you can think for yourself. You can see things as they are. You don't need to have someone tell you how to think. Moreover, go ahead and prove it for yourself.

Welcome to the real world.

Bonus Material Section

How to tell if you are in a cult.

  • You believe no bad news on your candidate can be true.
  • You only believe ideas from your favorite candidate\party and see all other ideas as wrong.
  • You only listen to news sources that agree with your point of view and they almost never have anything bad to say about your favorite candidate\party.

You are allowed to know the truth. Just listen to multiple and diverse news sources.

Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

If your go-to news source routinely has stories that do not pass this, perhaps it is not a legit news source.

  1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
  2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
  3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
  4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
  5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
  6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
  7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
  8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
  9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

Regulation?

The politcians are not the problem. They are the result of media outlets that report extreme bias opinions as fact that influence MILLIONS are the issue, i.e. Fox "News" etc.. These will keep producing fascist authoritarian types and a huge base that votes for them until changed. Its tricky because they will mobilize an army to "protect" free speech if challenged.

Perhaps the FCC (or appropriate agency) should mandate that:

  1. Any media that reach more than 250,000 people, that dont use valid sources and facts, should be mandated to show a disclaimer before all broadcasts that this is not truth. The banner needs to take up at least 1\3 of the screen and be there for at least 5 seconds prior to the broadcast start.
  2. Any program that has the word "NEWS" in their title should be mandated to show their sources for each story. If they dont, their broadcast license should be pulled and it announced they were broadcasting biases without legit sources as fact.

Free speech is cool! However, touting extreme agenda based biased statements as fact needs to be addressed if Democracy is to survive.

Related Articles