I generally disagree with the framing of this topic. I think the real issue is that what many people call "facts" are not facts at all. At least, they aren't easily or immediately verifiably true to the receiver, so unless you blindly trust everything you hear, you must make judgement calls.
If you read a research paper by some John D, that spells out a hypothesis, study plan, results, and summary, the written summary of results (even the the actual results themselves) is not the "fact" of the study topic.
The facts are:
- John G wrote these things down into a report paper
- John G claims to have followed the proposed plan properly
- John G claims to have accurately recorded the results
Even with replicated research, you are merely improving the statistical odds that the two people aren't putting out bad information, intentionally or otherwise.
If I tell someone that type 1 diabetes is a genetic disorder, there is only 1 fact from the receiver's perspective: I claim that type 1 diabetes is genetic. I have provided no way of verifying that information to them. If they look it up, they are trusting some source or trusting someone else's information. That is still a tribal following, as they have a set of sources that are going to be more likely to trust than others.
Most "facts" aren't shared through well vetted, replicated research. They are given though casual conversation or short internet comments. I'd say you'd be a madman if you take anything you've ever read or heard as fact. The closest you can come to fact is observing things yourself, and even that is flawed.
If you read a research paper by some John D, that spells out a hypothesis, study plan, results, and summary, the written summary of results (even the the actual results themselves) is not the "fact" of the study topic.
The facts are:
- John G wrote these things down into a report paper
- John G claims to have followed the proposed plan properly
- John G claims to have accurately recorded the results
Even with replicated research, you are merely improving the statistical odds that the two people aren't putting out bad information, intentionally or otherwise.
If I tell someone that type 1 diabetes is a genetic disorder, there is only 1 fact from the receiver's perspective: I claim that type 1 diabetes is genetic. I have provided no way of verifying that information to them. If they look it up, they are trusting some source or trusting someone else's information. That is still a tribal following, as they have a set of sources that are going to be more likely to trust than others.
Most "facts" aren't shared through well vetted, replicated research. They are given though casual conversation or short internet comments. I'd say you'd be a madman if you take anything you've ever read or heard as fact. The closest you can come to fact is observing things yourself, and even that is flawed.