Facts Vs Truth Quotes

Truth is an ideal we aspire to. Fact is an agreement on the general consensus of what truth is. Honesty is a personal truth shared.

For good people to do evil doesn't require only religion, or even any religion, but simply one of it's key elements: belief without evidence-in other words, faith. And that kind of faith is seen not just in religion, but any authoritarian ideology that puts dogma above truth and frowns on dissent. This was precisely the case in the totalitarian regimes of Maoist China and Stalinist Russia, whose excesses are often (and wrongly) blamed on atheism. Faith vs. Fact. p. 220

when both can’t be true. In 1946, in the days after World War II, presidential advisor Bernard Baruch said, “Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.” Variations have been uttered by U.S. Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger, U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and others. Today this seemingly indisputable truth no longer holds. Propaganda is indistinguishable from fact and we find ourselves living in the frightening pages of a George Orwell novel.

Why do I write fact-based fiction? With secrecy so inscrutable, I'm looking to needle someone about someone or something.

For good people to do evil doesn't require only religion, or even any religion, but simply one of it's key elements: belief without evidence-in other words, faith. And that kind of faith is seen not just in religion, but any authoritarian ideology that puts dogma above truth and frowns on dissent. This was precisely the case in the totalitarian regimes of Maoist China and Stalinist Russia, whose excesses are often (and wrongly) blamed on atheism.

Whatsoever is born, dies. Gods, messiahs, dogs. All, without exception. Beliefs to the contrary are not a fact but superstitions. And lies.

you do not get what is the foundation of the very liberty that we breathe, that the people are entitled to have the facts, that the judgment of the government itself is subject to their opinion and to their control, and in order to exercise that, they are entitled to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Senator.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Intelligent people speaks based on facts. Intelligent people speaks based on knowledge. Intelligent people don't make a fool of themselves by assuming. Intelligent people seeks Truth. Intelligent people always seek hard facts when they are not sure. INTELLIGENT people don't ridicule other people based on assumption. Intelligent people don't generalise, the world is fill with over 7 billion people which is controlled by only 20% intellectual minded people (Pareto's Law of 80/20) Only Shallow people speaks based on their narrow minds even when the TRUTH and facts are there for them to see, cos their small and narrow mind can't connect to their brain since there is no link. Proverbs 4 vs 7 says Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all your getting get understanding. Happy Sunday Folks

I have seen life. I have witnessed death. They are one. In fact there is no life or death. In the Absolute. There is but One.

You can disagree a million truths but not a single fact.

In his summary of these heroic efforts on the part of the behavioral geneticists to meet this frequent objection of the environmentalists [that identical (MZ) twins develop similarly because they are treated more similarly than fraternal (DZ) twins], [Kenneth] Kendler made no mention of the complete substantiation these studies have received from the Minnesota and Swedish reared-apart twin studies, which lack the potential pitfall of different MZ-DZ upbringings in the same home. He laboriously showed that the one complaint has no basis in fact. It would seem to put to rest once and for all this one complaint and force the critics to find different ones. This was not to be the case. For more than ten years after Kendler’s paper, opponents continued to cite the possibility of different upbringings given identicals as opposed to fraternals as invalidating twin studies. As late as 1994, the objection was raised in the pages of Scientific American. Sometimes the criticism is not alluded to directly. When other critics referred darkly to the “seriously flawed” nature of twin studies that compared monozygotic with dizygotic twins, more often than not the unnamed flaw turned out to be the one Kendler and others had refuted a decade earlier. And there is no possibility the critics who keep resurrecting this charge are unaware of the refutation. Each time the flaw is cited in print, a weary behavioral geneticist will write a letter to the editor pointing out the research that obviates the complaint, but the critics continue to make it year after year. As an outsider, I came into this field believing scientists were simply truth seekers, men and women dedicated to discovering the functioning of the world around them, to understanding the givens. I saw them as driven by profound curiosity. It was, therefore, disheartening for me to learn that many scientists with broad reputations do not place truth at the top of their agendas and react in sadly unscientific ways when confronted with evidence they feel threatens their ideological positions. Aware of the scientific rules, they first attempt to discredit with counterarguments, but when these are shown empirically to be invalid, they simply pretend that the evidence they were unable to shoot down doesn’t exist. Such selective memory permeates the behavioral genetics debate. In the nonscientific world we have a word for such behavior: dishonesty.

Butch pulled his best friend’s R8 V10 performance Plus into a parallel parking spot downtown. The car was murdered, everything blacked out, and it was sleek as a space shuttle, capable of reaching Millennium Falcon speeds in spite of the fact that it weighed as much as Rhage. The thing was also a dinosaur in the best sense of the word, a throwback to big-engine cars of the past that sounded like pro wrestlers and sucked gas like a sprinter used oxygen. In other words, it was right up V’s alley.

64. Are snowflakes exactly unique? We are terribly sorry to burst anyone's bubble here. Seeing both claims numerous times (i.e. “every snowflake is unique” vs. “no snowflake is unique”), we feel this needs clarification. Also, the truth is far more interesting, let alone weird than you may think. First of all, we do recognize 35 basic snowflake shapes today. But those are merely templates upon which actual snowflakes are built. Secondly, it is clear that microscopic snowflakes and snow crystals (i.e. water crystals) can be identical. However, what we see with our bare eyes are complex snowflakes, which are composed of a large number of such crystals. Interestingly enough, those crystals grow in fractals, beautiful shapes described by complex mathematical functions.

64. Are snowflakes exactly unique? We are terribly sorry to burst anyone's bubble here. Seeing both claims numerous times (i.e. “every snowflake is unique” vs. “no snowflake is unique”), we feel this needs clarification. Also, the truth is far more interesting, let alone weird than you may think. First of all, we do recognize 35 basic snowflake shapes today. But those are merely templates upon which actual snowflakes are built. Secondly, it is clear that microscopic snowflakes and snow crystals (i.e. water crystals) can be identical. However, what we see with our bare eyes are complex snowflakes, which are composed of a large number of such crystals. Interestingly enough, those crystals grow in fractals, beautiful shapes described by complex mathematical functions. But most mind-staggering part here is the probability of two snowflakes being identical. When we crunch the numbers on this, every complex snowflake can have one of many – very many – combinations. In fact, the number of these combinations is larger than the total number of atoms in the known universe. Thus, it is extremely unlikely you will see two identical snowflakes. Ever.

One of the most important – and sudden – changes in politics for several decades has been the move from a world of information scarcity to one of overload. Available information is now far beyond the ability of even the most ordered brain to categorise into any organising principle, sense or hierarchy. We live in an era of fragmentation, with overwhelming information options. The basics of what this is doing to politics is now fairly well-trodden stuff: the splintering of established mainstream news and a surge of misinformation allows people to personalise their sources in ways that play to their pre-existing biases.5 Faced with infinite connection, we find the like-minded people and ideas, and huddle together. Brand new phrases have entered the lexicon to describe all this: filter bubbles, echo chambers and fake news. It’s no coincidence that ‘post-truth’ was the word of the year in 2016. At times ‘post-truth’ has become a convenient way to explain complicated events with a simple single phrase. In some circles it has become a slightly patronising new orthodoxy to say that stupid proles have been duped by misinformation on the internet into voting for things like Brexit or Trump. In fact, well-educated people are in my experience even more subject to these irrationalities because they usually have an unduly high regard for their own powers of reason and decision-making.* What’s happening to political identity as a result of the internet is far more profound than this vote or that one. It transcends political parties and is more significant than echo chambers or fake news. Digital communication is changing the very nature of how we engage with political ideas and how we understand ourselves as political actors. Just as Netflix and YouTube replaced traditional mass-audience television with an increasingly personalised choice, so total connection and information overload offers up an infinite array of possible political options. The result is a fragmentation of singular, stable identities – like membership of a political party – and its replacement by ever-smaller units of like-minded people. Online, anyone can find any type of community they wish (or invent their own), and with it, thousands of like-minded people with whom they can mobilise. Anyone who is upset can now automatically, sometimes algorithmically, find other people that are similarly upset. Sociologists call this ‘homophily’, political theorists call it ‘identity politics’ and common wisdom says ‘birds of a feather flock together’. I’m calling it re-tribalisation. There is a very natural and well-documented tendency for humans to flock together – but the key thing is that the more possible connections, the greater the opportunities to cluster with ever more refined and precise groups. Recent political tribes include Corbyn-linked Momentum, Black Lives Matter, the alt-right, the EDL, Antifa, radical veganism and #feelthebern. I am not suggesting these groups are morally equivalent, that they don’t have a point or that they are incapable of thoughtful debate – simply that they are tribal.