It is all in the way you see it
I am writing in search of a consensus; a proposal put forward of sorts for advocacy and broad community support among those, like me, who grow tired of the debate and wish to simplify the process.
So much is lost financially and in mortality waiting for processes of discovery to find the cures and solutions to our daily fears and shortened lifespan due to preventable Healthcare issues. Perhaps the solution lies in the definition of a single word. The word “fact” is often confused most often with the word “opinion”. The general public is not well informed, or informed at all, in most cases as to the type of fact presented. There are indeed many types of facts however generally they can be classified into two categories; “Political” or “Scientific” I regard as “Real”.
If we were more aware of the distinction, many interpretations could be made in decision-making processes, which would of course solve many of our daily problems much more expeditiously while minimizing costly errors. In the field of anti smoker advocacy for instance political or P-facts are the preferred choice of those guided in consensus views. Unfortunately, even scientists or researchers are in peril of being drawn into supporting P-Facts when R-Facts are more appropriate. Simply as a result of intimidation and monetary enticements, which are allowed to guide their comments and depreciate the process. Reclassification of a single word backed up with a checks and balances process could end the confusion, leading to higher confidence, in the integrity of those who provide our information bases, vital to our well being.
Political facts can be described as man made in order to sell a political view or increase popularity.
Scientific facts can be described as the type which are immovable the result of real discovery and direct observation reproducible and not possible to change without a more accurate means of observation accepted in peer review.
If we were guided in such a redefinition, we could legislate the expression of all views as P-Facts or R-Facts (Political or Real) in all public statements to suit the validity of the argument. Kind of like the hate crimes laws to protect all of community while not impugning the rights of others, while respecting at the same time the value of free speech. If anyone substituted P-Facts for R-Facts, it would not be hard to detect and the credibility of the individual could be considered in future discussions.
Perhaps at some point, we could set up a credit bureau of sorts. Ratings could be assigned to professionals who have been reported to have misled the public. The public could then properly assign credibility to those who wish to lead us by simply looking up a beacon score. Perhaps if a score got to low a mandatory ethics course would be prescribed taking away a license to practice as a doctor or researcher and the word integrity in kind could be reevaluated to actually mean more than having a larger base of support.
How would the legions of those set to protect us from ourselves fare in such a process? Not well, I am afraid, for the knowledge they portray is derived in consensus and as ad agencies will; credibility and R-Facts are laid to waste in popularity modeling as exhibited on the 6 o’clock news and other fictional presentations designed to amuse, or stimulate other human emotions, to suit the purpose being purchased. Social engineering principles at Health Canada described in detail, establishes the Government as the ruler of personal opinion and authority over what is credible. Monopoly rule, in spite of community opinions only announced opinions are considered credible. Traditionally community opinion in addition to personal experience were also guided by 3000 years of civilization and predicated for the most part in trial and error, making those opinions closer to R Facts, or as we know them “common sense”. Clearer understanding of all the systems in play could suit us much more efficiently and establish the R-Fact ideals of democracy replacing the form of government we have now.
Lets think about it and maybe some Government funding could be found to advocate for the word “Fact”
Possible names for the non-profit or charity could be suggested in order to acquaint others with the cause something with brad range social appeal like my favorite choices:
“I am sick of the bullshit and I am not going to take it any more”
Or
“I refuse to pay any more taxes to these thieving lying sacks”
Regards; FXR
No comments:
Post a Comment