When did people lost the ability to experience empirical reality, and generalize and draw conclusions from it, as opposed to having everything force-fed in the form of some statistic?
Finding "corroborating information" should be the province of journalists, scientists, the police, etc.
Being able to draw first level conclusions from their empirical experience of reality (and, in this case, their years of exposure to watching media, reading media, reading about media, and seeing media coverage unfold and evaluated), is table stakes for being a citizen.
Without that direct experience and the ability to distill it into a general understand, you're just someone reading statistics and reports, who they can't evaluate or corroborate with any of their experience, might as well be reading for some fictional land.
You said 80% of blah blah then drcry the use of statistics. You just forced-fed that to everyone
When did people lost the ability to experience empirical reality, and generalize and draw conclusions from it
No one lost this ability it's just an objectively worse way to come to a conclusion. Making generalizations is bad, it's weird you would openly propose doing it.
empirical experience of reality (and, in this case, their years of exposure to watching media, reading media, reading about media, and seeing media coverage unfold and evaluated)
You're simply describing anecdotal evidence which has little value especially if there's alternatives and it's
being used to make a conclusion. It's fine to offer up anecdotes but with supportering information. However what the media does and tells you isn't your own personal experiences.
Also, watching and observing all media or just your own selected media where people tell you something is the way it is.
The issue is a persons limited ability to observe as well as confirmation bias,and memory lead to faulty conclusions.
as opposed to having everything force-fed in the form of some statistic?
You're claiming statistics have less value than limited personal observations?
You also used the phrase "forced-fed" as a manipulation tactic to make people think whatever you mentioned after it is bad. Like if I said "My mom force fed us hamburgers for dinner" instead of "My mom made hamburgers for dinner".
>Making generalizations is bad, it's weird you would openly propose doing it.
Making generalizations is the cornerstone of understanding the world, and the basis of science. The alternative is taking each element of larger clusters of things and behaviors as some unique snowflake, and never learning any greater lesson ("missing the forrest for the trees").
>You're claiming statistics have less value than limited personal observations?
Merely claiming? This is reality 101. Anything you can directly observe is more real than some third or fourth-hand statistical "knowledge".
>You also used the phrase "forced-fed" as a manipulation tactic to make people think whatever you mentioned after it is bad.
Or, you know, I used it to accurately describe the way statistics are created, manipulated, promoted, and used to paint all kinds of pictures state and private interests want to promote. Which is how they got their place at the worse end of the scale after "lies" and "damned lies".
Or, you know, I used it to accurately describe the way statistics are created, manipulated, promoted, and used to paint all kind
Another generalization without evidence?
Merely claiming? This is reality 101. Anything you can directly observe is more real than some third or fourth-hand statistical "knowledge".
No where did I say your observations are false. If you use limited observations to reach a conclusion. You're not even documenting your observations if you are simply relying on your memory.
This is literally how racists think. They observe behavior then generalize about a race. However confirmation bias, media manipulation, and cultural bias muddy your "recorded" observation. I'm not saying you're a racist but I'm showing using your own input of the world to generlize leads to faulty conclusions.
Making generalizations is the cornerstone of understanding the world, and the basis of science
No, the scientific method is the cornerstone of science. Observations are only the first step to creating a hypothesis then attempting to disprove it.
Statistics can be wrong but that doesn't mean you should dismiss them.
Finding "corroborating information" should be the province of journalists, scientists, the police, etc.
Being able to draw first level conclusions from their empirical experience of reality (and, in this case, their years of exposure to watching media, reading media, reading about media, and seeing media coverage unfold and evaluated), is table stakes for being a citizen.
Without that direct experience and the ability to distill it into a general understand, you're just someone reading statistics and reports, who they can't evaluate or corroborate with any of their experience, might as well be reading for some fictional land.