Someone Get The LA Times A Dictionary

I cannot believe the reader's representative for a large circulation daily would write something like this:

L.A. Times columnists, Rutten among them, are encouraged to use their columns as forums for their fact-based assessments of news events. His assessments might not match yours, but that doesn’t mean that his assessments warrant correction.

Thud!! And all this time I thought I actually knew what fact means.

A fact is something that is the case. Consequently, anything that is not considered "fact" is, in fact, NOT the case. A "fact" is the state of affairs reported by a true statement.

Comments

[Lala]

It's newspeak.
I've noticed this for some time now; people have different sets of facts.
It depends on what the meaning of is is.
There's no there there.
Freedom of speech means different things to different people - some people think (or feel) that it means that radio stations are required to play music that they don't want to play.

And here's something that drives me crazy - the newsreader will be talking about someone whose blood-alcohol level is high - the newsreader will then say that it is over the legal limit, but the person with the high alcohol level has not been driving a vehicle, so it makes no sense.

[rwilymz]

"There's no there there."

This was the put-down of California a half a century ago: "The trouble with California is that once you're there, there's no 'there' there." I'd have to look up who said it.

I'm a data analyst. I collect factual data, store it, retreive it, present it standard formats for analysis.

2+2=4 is a fact. It is an objective, measurable reality. Usually of a very, very small portion of reality. It's often clinical and, while true, it's not untypically meaningless unless it has some context to it.

Analysis is the process of assembling sets of facts into a contextual view of some larger piece of reality from which you can draw a conclusion, often in the process of deriving a plan, or policy, or understanding. "If I have two dollars in my left pocket and two dollars in my right pocket, then I have four dollars. And if a Hardees thickburger combo costs $4.69, then I don't have enough money for lunch." This is analysis.

The thing with analysis though is that you sometimes don't use enough facts. You might be overlooking the fact that you also have a coupon for $1 off a thickburger combo in your shirt pocket. Why did you overlook that fact? Some people have a bias against coupons: only nerds and geeks use coupons. You might have simply forgotten you had the coupon. You might not have known the coupons were in the paper three days ago.

But faulty data-selection is the biggest problem in analysis. Ignorance, forgetfulness and bias play a large part.

Then there's opinion. Opinion is an assessment of how the fact, the reality, or the results of analysis affect *you personally*. "I don't even like Hardees, so why do I care how much their combo costs?"

...for example.

And the problem with opinion is that many people are dissatisfied with having *mere* opinions; they feel compelled to backfill them by factual support, to lend their opinions some sort of authority.

"Hardees thickburgers are high in saturated fat and bad for your health." And this is true. But when you have the microwave Hot Pocket instead, you are doing no better "for your health" -- you end up cherry-picking facts to rationalize a bias. It's acceptible to denounce Hardees thickburgers for being unhealthy, but we'll just look the other way when the chosen alternative is *just* as unhealthy.

And, well, that's intellectual dishonesty. Of one form.

Another popular form of intellectual dishonesty is to make up facts to support your opinion: "The condiments used by Hardees in their thickburgers are made from monkey snot." Uh ... no they aren't.

You are now lying in order to make your opinions seem more reasonable. ...as if being of the opinion that Hardees thickburgers aren't your cup of tea needs to be "reasonable" to other people.

If you don't like Hardees thickburgers, don't get them. You don't need to justify your opinion. It's yours.

As I tell people over and over and over again: you can have any opinions you want; you canNOT have any facts you want.

Or, as I also tell people: The fact that you have an opinion does not make your opinion fact.

[jj]

The above post by rwilymz OUGHT to be required reading for ALL Leftists and liberals, most especially the bunch who inhabit this blog, although their heads might blow up if they really thought about it. Anyhow, thanks for your attempt to educate the masses on the Left, rwilymz, and some on the right as well, including me.

[Fred Beloit]

I understand the comment about California was really about Oakland and that it was made by author Gertrude Stein, for the record (if I am correct).

[Fred Beloit]

Yeah sure, talking points memo, I don't think so many times, wise guy. How "bout flight sweet issue in Turkmonaslam? You try to bunk me busta, no fouling. That why I name you Plonk like tastes cheap wine, Mr wino. You trying pull flannel over gils' lids every time. That is not going to fly or run up a flag pole for me. Just wanted you to know what you deal with. Be so careful next time you try show off. gil make chop onions out of you.

[Lala]

When G. Stein returned to Oakland, where she was raised, everything had changed.
I looked it up - I didn't know it before.

[Fred Beloit]

I had a wonderful English Prof who knew her in Paris toward the end of her life. He couldn't praise her enough. He always referred to her as Miss Stein.

[Purple Avenger]

With "The Deciders" facts are whatever they want them to be. Krugman was called on stuff like this a few times by Calame. Calame is gone, Krugman is still there.

[Fred Beloit]

Thanks, rwily.

[Lala]

"CO2 is causing global warming" (new name - climate change) - but 1934 is the warmest year on record and CO2 emissions were very low.

The Warmest Year on Record? Prior to Global Warming
By Trenton Hansen | August 9, 2007

That’s right, the warmest year on record is 1934, according to an new analysis of the data from NASA. The Top Twenty Warmest Years in order are:

1934
1998
1921
2006
1931
1999
1953
1990
1938
1939
1954
1987
2001
1986
1946
1991
2005
1933
1981
1941
This casts still more doubt on the claims that the earth is growing gradually warmer due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, since 1934 and four of the other Top Ten occurred prior to the 1940s when levels of atmospheric CO2 from industrial production began rising. Only four of the warmest ten years have occurred in the last ten years.

[chris]

Facts? You mean like "Mission Accomplished"???

No wonder you fact-finders are at 24%.

[seekeronos]

"Mission Accomplished" if I'm not mistaken... referred to the conclusion of the offensive campaign which deposed Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athist government.

Not the Iraqi occupation. That can well be considered another mission.

[Fred Beloit]

A reminder to you Boob. The mission to depose Saddam WAS accomplished. I don't see him. Saddam, Saddam. Where is that naughty boy? That's a fact.

[chris]

Where's Saddam? Where's the WMDs? Where's bin Laden?

Miserable.Failure=24%=FACT

[rwilymz]

"Where's Saddam?"

In hell, competing with Chris [haha, irony] for Satan's affections. [Where was he going to go? Detroit?]

"Where's the WMDs?"

Good question. They were there in '98 when the UN left them in the locked warehouses; they were gone in '02 when the UN went back [you're welcome] and discovered the locks had been cut off the doors.

You tell me? Where'd they go?

"Where's bin Laden?"

In a cave somewhere in the uncontrolled NW Frontier of P'stan, living on bugs and roots.

[Lala]

Don't forget the "fact" of the "fake turkey".

[seekeronos]

"--- Don't forget the "fact" of the "fake turkey". ---"

Was that a "fact" or a "fict"?

Because liberals ALWAYS keep their ficts straight. Or at least, LGBTPQAJAEOPTYCTO²-friendly straight.

As for the other variety of "fact", there is also the somewhat elusive "f*ct"... (which may rhyme with "schucked").

Becoming f*ct is usually the result of a rapid and unexpected collision between the "facts" and the "ficts".

...

...

...

...

² LGBTPQAJAEOPTYCTO stands for "Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Trangendered-Polyamourous-Questioning-And-Just-About-Every-Other-Perverse-Thing-You-Can-Think-Of.

[Lala]

Thats almost as bad as the Decider's plastic Thanksgiving turkey!

Posted by: bobInStamford | Saturday, October 27, 2007 at 09:23 PM

[jj]

Regarding Saddam, chris/Boob was apparently a little late for the party, just as he was for Thanksgiving dinner.

"[Where was he going to go? Detroit?]"

Well, I was shooting for Stamford, rwilymz, now that would be irony! Haha!

[one of many]

"Thats almost as bad as the Decider's plastic Thanksgiving turkey!"

and that's why keeping track of the facts is important. The turkey (presumably the 2003 troop one) was not made out of plastic, it was made of turkey, had feathers at one point in time and came from an egg. While it is really a minor point in reality about whether the turkey was a real turkey designated as a centerpiece or a plastic turkey, the "fact" that it was made of plastic has become a rational to argue that Bush is so clueless he cannot tell a plastic fowl from a real one. Saying "Bush took the turkey which had been raosted and prepared as showpiece and served it to the troops" doesn't impugn Bush as much as saying "Bush is so clueless he tried to serve a plastic turkey". But Bush didn't try to serve a plastic turkey in reality, however for some people it has become accepted as a "fact" despite having no correspondance to reality. There has become such a large accumulation of these non-reality based "facts" that it has become almost impossible to argue with the reality based community if you are, in fact, arguing about reality.