[quote]Besides the obvious one of religion, the only one I can think of is the myth that caffeine stunts your growth. This is only at the top of my mind do to being at a coffee shop earlier.
Haha. But religion is Fact. This is based on the ideal that your perception creates your reality. If your "erception" is your religion then it is your reality, regardless of weather or not it is truth. Therefore if it is your reality, then it is fact to you. Others may have a differing "opinion", but it is moot if you chose to disregard it.
Anywho... This thread is about "Wrong Facts", not opinion, so; Did you know that, contrary to popular belief, most bottled waters are just tap water, and that in many cases are less controlled than city taps? Tap water is regulated by a company (or several, I am not actually sure) that require daily tests to be taken to ensure they are safe for public consumption. Bottled water is considered a "food" so it is regulated by the FDA and only requires yearly testing. Also, often times, when a company says "bottled at the source", the source they are referring to is the distiller in the town of the bottling factory, not the Rocky Mountains like they want you to believe. And lets not even get into all the plastics and poisons and such that leak into bottled water!
Oops.... i am sort of a noob with this forum stuff... and i accidently quoted someone and then didn't realize I had to unquote them in order to resume my personal message. Everything after the first paragraph is my words, not a quote.
Haha. But religion is Fact. This is based on the ideal that your perception creates your reality. If your "erception" is your religion then it is your reality, regardless of weather or not it is truth. Therefore if it is your reality, then it is fact to you. Others may have a differing "opinion", but it is moot if you chose to disregard it.
No, belief does not equal reality. No matter how much you think something is real your personal opinion doesn't make it so.
Anywho... This thread is about "Wrong Facts", not opinion,
In a way it is since "wrong facts" are facts at all. As pointed out early on in the thread.
Haha. But religion is Fact. This is based on the ideal that your perception creates your reality. If your "erception" is your religion then it is your reality, regardless of weather or not it is truth. Therefore if it is your reality, then it is fact to you. Others may have a differing "opinion", but it is moot if you chose to disregard it.
There was once this sect of martial arts who's prancers believed that they could survive a bullet to the head. There perception was that the gun would be harmless to them, their "reality" was they were invincible. So strongly that they ignored others "opinions" and set out to prove it. Guess how many dead martial artist came out of this?
There was once this sect of martial arts who's prancers believed that they could survive a bullet to the head. There perception was that the gun would be harmless to them, their "reality" was they were invincible. So strongly that they ignored others "opinions" and set out to prove it. Guess how many dead martial artist came out of this?
That is awesome! Except for the part about all the dead guys. And really that both contradicts my point and helps it. Those guys were crazy, but their Insanity was still reality to them. I did say that reality was not necessarily based on truth, only your reality is based on your truth.
No, belief does not equal reality. No matter how much you think something is real your personal opinion doesn't make it so.
But it does make it real to you. I realize that others may not beleive it, but it is still your reality. But I do agree with you that there is an ultimate truth and the everyone else is a halfwit! :P
I did say that reality was not necessarily based on truth, only your reality is based on your truth.
No reality is base on truth.
But it does make it real to you.
Something seeming real to someone and something being real isn't the same thing.
If what someone perceives as real is false then that's all it is, a false perception of reality. It doesn't matter how real it is to that person it's still a false view of reality.
If what someone perceives as real is false then that's all it is, a false perception of reality. It doesn't matter how real it is to that person it's still a false view of reality
Ok bud. I realize that. You realize that, BUT..... It doesn't change the FACT that to those delusional martial artists, they could really dodge bullets. I guarantee you, right now, you believe something to be true based on your life experiences, your perception, that isn't true to me based on my perception, or in other words, the direction in which I see the world around me.
Example: Man cannot fly. Leonardo Di'Vinci believed that he could make a human soar like the birds. He was delusional to those around him. We know now that he wasn't crazy, but rather, he was a visionary! His reality was that man could fly based on his perception, even if the people of his time could not see it.
Another thing. No one man has the answers to everything, so something you believe to be obvious fact, to someone who knows better, you seem like a raging fool! If you don't have all the answers to the puzzle then you can't possibly know the truth, only your truth.
If I told you that Resses Puff's cereal is the best cereal on the planet, that would be simultaneously my opinion, my truth, and my reality. If you said that the best cereal was Corn Flakes, hands down, that would be your opinion, your truth and your reality. Hence Your truth is based on your reality.
p.s. This is a lot of fun. I have never been so inclined to discuss topics like this when anyone in dept before! Keep it up!
I don't think that Wikioedia is a very reliable source.
And...
And I think that is another very common misconception. They have editors and stuff, and most articles have several sources listed at the bottom. In addition to that, articles with content which hasn't been verified or which may be partial usually have a warning saying so at the top. Sure, you shouldn't just trust everything on Wikipedia blindly, but most of it should be true, especially when it's about something like a list of common misconceptions.
Who are these "editors of stuff"? What are their qualifications? How do we know that they have a clue as to what they're talking about? The more you edit in Wikipedia the higher your rank is; therefore, the more credibility they have. Circular logic much?
Colbert cleverly illustrated that if you have enough people submit something to Wikipedia, then it gets put on there are as so-called fact. Yes, Wikipedia did eventually discover and change the erroneous information, but it was still on there.
When I worked as a researcher, I discovered so many incorrect things on Wikipedia that I stopped using it. It's not a bad starting point for general information, but I wasn't going to rely upon it.
For example, I once had a client who needed to know when the clock-radio was invented. Wikipedia says, "One of the first radio clocks was offered by Heathkit in 1983." That's not just wrong. That's very wrong. It's off by about 50 years. (If one defines a clock-radio as radio and a clock in the same unit and the radio is turned on or off by clock at set times then it's 1931--as best as I could determine. There was a patent in 1920-something for something similar to a clock-radio, but I was unable to read the whole patent and it cited something dealing with train engines. So, I figure it's probably not something we'd consider a clock-radio.)
Once I met a priest who would log into Wikipedia, change an article, then quote that article just so he could win an argument...all my hope for Wikipedia went out the window.
It's a good starting point. It can help you form good questions to help you find what you seek. It's fine for general information, but when credibility counts do not rely upon Wikipedia.
Oh...and none of my college professors would accept Wikipedia as a source including my professors for my research skills on the internet classes. (Yes, real classes. LOL! Those classes were cake.)
It doesn't change the FACT that to those delusional martial artists, they could really dodge bullets.
It doesn't mean in reality they could. They held a false view of reality. In this case to their detriment.
I guarantee you, right now, you believe something to be true based on your life experiences, your perception, that isn't true to me based on my perception, or in other words, the direction in which I see the world around me.
Yes but that wouldn't make both of us correct. So one or both of us could be holding a false view of reality. We can determine this through objective verification. (something apart from our individual perceptions)
No one man has the answers to everything, so something you believe to be obvious fact, to someone who knows better, you seem like a raging fool! If you don't have all the answers to the puzzle then you can't possibly know the truth, only your truth.
No I wouldn't be holding my own truth, I can only get closer to the truth as a learn from my errors and correct them as new evidence is presented to me.
If I told you that Resses Puff's cereal is the best cereal on the planet, that would be simultaneously my opinion, my truth, and my reality. If you said that the best cereal was Corn Flakes, hands down, that would be your opinion, your truth and your reality. Hence Your truth is based on your reality.
This would just be our subjective opinions on the matter. It's not forming a separate reality for each of us. The reality of the matter would be that we simply have different tastes.
I don't think that Wikioedia is a very reliable source.
It still does make for a good place to start, as you can follow the sources it cites to where wiki got it's information from, that isn't so easy to edit for what ever reason.
I don't think that Wikioedia is a very reliable source.
I won't say my opinion about this, but I'll tell the fact that Wikipedia is still better than many other source of information (I'm talking about the place I live, I cannot guarantee that it's true in other countries). For instance, when I was at high school, I've been told a lot of false and/or inaccurate information from my teachers (mainly beacuse they were told the same wrong information in the first place). So almost everytime I had to do a research I used to go on Wiki and say to miself "Oh great, it states just the opposite my teachers told me. Who's right?". At that point I used to look for other source in order to get a confirm. Most of the time Wiki was right, teachies were wrong.
What I mean is that there're a lot of source of information which are inaccurate. Wiki is not perfect at all, but still better than others.
A little downside: Wiki is good for general researches, like the stupid one you have to do beacuse you high-school-teachie told you, but it won't work for in-depth searches. A bit sad, but I think it makes sense. Wiki is supposed to be an encycolpedia, not a library filled with in-depth information. That's just my opion anyway.
I won't say my opinion about this, but I'll tell the fact that Wikipedia is still better than many other source of information (I'm talking about the place I live, I cannot guarantee that it's true in other countries).
This reminded me of something. I was watching Blog Tv once and they had PZ Myers as a guest. They were comparing the accuracy of wikipedia to conservapedia using the page on PZ Myers. Myers after the comparison said he found wiki to be about 98% accurate in the information it had on him. Mostly this error was the result of poor wording.
