"Facts"

[Ambo Suno]

This thread could be used for slicing through "truth" and "reality" from a level and angle of "fact." There probably are philosophical and scientific treatices around this topic, since "facts", "truth claims", "validity", and such designators are one favorite modern starting point for critique and for intentions to "know."

Knowing, and particularly facts that purport to populate knowledge, are a very tricky business. They touch into two privileged root philosophical inquiries, epistemology, and in the direction of ontology, both of which deconstruct much of what we think we know and what we hold dear, consciously and unconsciously.

This post and link to the Politifact site could have been placed under Edwyrd's "True and false reason thread," as "facts" so pertain and undergird, overgird, and imbue much of the analyses that are done by others. Or probably on some other threads. However, this separate thread might be a good way to slice through our senses of truth and such at this level and angle of everyday knowing, thereby, highlighting "facts."

At an everyday scale, we are inundated by "facts" in consumption and material utilization choices, in skillful work and general means & management, in life paths, wisdom searches, and in this particular season that I write, political discourse, claims, insults, and battle - e.g. the leadership elections.

I can see that, as always, there are places and ways in which bias and error and inflation of even this honesty-search process can go awry. Fairly ordinary but rather educated people who seem to intend to have much objectivity, as we know, are actually and almost inevitably subject to sources of skew and error. Yet, probably until I become aware of some egregious corruption (always relative,) I am glad for what they do. Good effort - probably little impact [grimace.]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/nov/01/princip...

Here in the attached file is one part of the standards that aspires towards making valid discernments and judgements. These principles (and others that you may want to read) give me a good resonant and common-sense feel, as a starting point.

[Ambo Suno]

Here below are three links to truth-o-meter bar graphs. These give a quick sense of the "truth" telling of each of these candidates. Personally, I include my own contextual factors to moderate, obviously in my biasing ways, to 'explain' and maybe to justify some of the why's and how I come to weight and value each of these candidates.

As you go beyond these graphs, you'll see particular lies and truths, falsehoods and validities of statements made.

Do your own things to justify your probably already determined tastes and preferences :) Hah.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

[DavidM58]

To sum up the candidates, 

Adding up half true, mostly true, and true:
Bernie 71%

Hillary 72%

Trump 23%

Adding up True & Mostly True:

Bernie: 52%

Hillary: 51%

Trump: 9%

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

Bernie: 0%

Hillary: 1%

Trump: 20%

So we can see that Hillary and Bernie are about what we would expect (I expect) for political candidates; and Trump is just blatantly so far off base, and apparently there are a great many people who just don't care. 

This supports the contention that what Jean Gebser calls the mental-rational consciousness structure is in late stage deficiency. Scott Preston has been blogging extensively about this at his Chrysalis blog. 

Such as here (Donald Trump as Caligula) and here (Trump and the New Normal) and these posts on technocratic shamanism (Algis McKinus essay - he was the English translator of Gebser).

"Facts" and "reason" are not what they used to be in terms of how they are valued in our culture currently. Otherwise, Politifact might be a very popular website.

[Ambo Suno]

I smile at how you collated those.

Thanks for the references.