We believe what we want to believe and we have no way of knowing if it is true or not.
That's not true... we have lots of ways of "knowing" truth. The ways we do have are not infallible... but, that's never been a standard that's attainable in any case... and neither are they all equally as reliable...
But, its just an error to say "no way". So many ways...
It may be more true that seeking truth is work... and that lots of people are too lazy to do any work themselves... and simply choose to be dependent on others for determining truth... And, that's both what CNN (etc.) expects, in thinking you might be lazy enough to trust them... and what they depend on continuing to be true, about you, while thinking it probably won't matter much if they lie to you ?
So, maybe consider "rules for determining" truth... vary ? How you find truth in science... by observation and consideration paired with experiments to test truths... proving them (or not) through repetition... is different than how you find truth in law... through fact finding investigations, examination and cross-examination of witnesses... But, both apply the same rules of logic... in different areas of philosophy... where the "rules" for finding truth are often different... but still more or less the same, logically...
Beyond that... you constantly judge for yourself whether or not others are likely to be telling you the truth... and you learn there are rules that apply to truth in the telling of it... (as journalists used to do in seeking and reporting "who, what, where, why, when, and how"... versus "an unverified source said") And there are rules we all know that apply to analyzing others behavior to see if they might be trusted or not ? Some is just experience... some is determining facts and seeing them truthfully recounted... some is ferreting out suspicious behavior conflicting with truth telling, including some having motives that matter more to them than truth telling..
Google studying that ?
From 2015: Google has developed a technology to tell whether ‘facts’ on the Internet are true
But, from 2018, Google: "We're not a truth engine". A Google Executive Just Admitted a Frightening Truth About Its Search Engine. Here It Is in 5 Words
And, both Google's ability and your own ability are not hard to test.
What do you think... and what might Google's "truth engine" think about what I believe ?
I believe that: Texas is being invaded by aliens. The Federal government is secretly helping the aliens while working against patriotic Americans who are resisting them. Men from Mars are under attack and are being killed... but, it is likely the Feds will succeed in ensuring the alien invasion succeeds.
Of course: mine is technically true...
Mars, Texas Van Zandt County: Texas man who rounded up aliens found dead
And mine is not true at all... in the way it is intended to read... as meaning something it doesn't... because I changed a headline to make it ambiguous when it really wasn't...
I expect most people wouldn't buy the story as I presented it... but a bot might have no difficulty checking the facts and noting it as "absolutely" true... which it is... except that facts that may be absolutely true, technically... don't necessarily combine to make any greater absolutely true statement... because facts might be true, but language in relation isn't always absolutely true...
Why did some people believe "I did not have sex with that woman"... while others weren't footed at all ?
Just lazy ? Or, believed what they wanted to believe ? Or, bad at judging who is trustworthy and who is not ? Or, lack the integrity themselves, so really just don't care about the lies ? |
