Speaking Truth in Posts

[Sudsy]

Thank you for the good reminder, Sudsy. I guess that I've made it clear in other posts that I don't put a lot of stock in statistics, since they merely represent the personal experience/observation of a limited number of people. They can help open our eyes to relevant needs (ie. statistics in a school show that 75% of students are scoring low in a certain subject), but they are not definitive.

That's an interesting position to take, and certainly one you are welcome to hold; most of us (myself included) accept standard statistical models and indeed will then make statements of fact based on them. So I can say something like, for example, that people who cohabit as opposed to people who are married have 35% more domestic violence*.

Statistical observations are not based on "personal experience of a limited number of people"; they are done with enough of a sample size to remove personal biases (or at least, a high quality study should do that), and then the result has a "confidence interval". For example, my statistic above might have a confidence interval of 95% that it is within +/- 5% of being correct.

Can anyone ensure that all statistical observations are made from a a sufficient sample size to uncover what is true ? I don't think we can. And where do you get the stats on what I underlined above that 'most of us' and 'indeed will' do as you say ? Statistical observations are being challenged everyday as to their truth.

I am open to the idea that you might have your idea of what your truth is, and I have my idea. Mine would include statistics. From what you have said, yours doesn't. This means we will tend to find ourselves at loggerheads when discussing certain things.

Not all truth needs told. If my motive is to destroy it would be better to keep silent to any who are not directly involved.

This may be true; however, I am a bit disturbed with the example I have seen in some circles where "certain" truths are not to be told because they would be too embarrassing for certain people who like to keep major sin issues a secret.

If we are to make statements based on some statistical data from somewhere, then, to me, it would be more appropriate to say 'this source indicates' or 'some say' or 'I believe' or 'I think' and not make statements that are said in a way that this is fact that cannot be challenged. If I say 'people who cohabit as opposed to people who are married have 35% more domestic violence' from some study, that doesn't make it true enough to say it in a way that infers this must be true. I think at times there is no back up statistical observation but rather definitive statements are made to say I know the truth so listen to me. Thats how I sees it.

[MaxPC]

If we are to make statements based on some statistical data from somewhere, then, to me, it would be more appropriate to say 'this source indicates' or 'some say' or 'I believe' or 'I think' and not make statements that are said in a way that this is fact that cannot be challenged. If I say 'people who cohabit as opposed to people who are married have 35% more domestic violence' from some study, that doesn't make it true enough to say it in a way that infers this must be true. I think at times there is no back up statistical observation but rather definitive statements are made to say I know the truth so listen to me. Thats how I sees it.

Agreed. Often I think the mass media style of “bleeding headlines” creeps into the daily usage of the average person. The need to be heard above the informational onslaught is one plausible motive.

There is also the behavior of making incorrect assumptions and even the error is noted, the perseveration of continuing to repeat the erroneous assumption in order to “win”.

[Josh]

Can anyone ensure that all statistical observations are made from a a sufficient sample size to uncover what is true ? I don't think we can. And where do you get the stats on what I underlined above that 'most of us' and 'indeed will' do as you say ? Statistical observations are being challenged everyday as to their truth.

Yes we can. That is what the entire field of statistics is about, and it underpins basically all of science, modern technology and things like business as it is conducted today too.

I am open to the idea that you might have your idea of what your truth is, and I have my idea. Mine would include statistics. From what you have said, yours doesn't. This means we will tend to find ourselves at loggerheads when discussing certain things.

If we are to make statements based on some statistical data from somewhere, then, to me, it would be more appropriate to say 'this source indicates' or 'some say' or 'I believe' or 'I think' and not make statements that are said in a way that this is fact that cannot be challenged. If I say 'people who cohabit as opposed to people who are married have 35% more domestic violence' from some study, that doesn't make it true enough to say it in a way that infers this must be true. I think at times there is no back up statistical observation but rather definitive statements are made to say I know the truth so listen to me. Thats how I sees it.

[/quote]

When I quoted that statistic in another thread I did include the source.

At some point, we have to agree on basic facts and evidence, and statistics are part of that. It is flatly true that in our culture, people who cohabit have more domestic violence than married people. (I looked up the study and it had a rigorous methodology, a high confidence interval, and was peer reviewed.)

[Ken]

Can anyone ensure that all statistical observations are made from a a sufficient sample size to uncover what is true ? I don't think we can. And where do you get the stats on what I underlined above that 'most of us' and 'indeed will' do as you say ? Statistical observations are being challenged everyday as to their truth.

That is what peer review in published science is about and what it is *supposed* to do. Even though it sometimes doesn't. But sample size is only one criteria. You also need to make sure your survey population is representative. You wouldn't, for example, interview a sampling of Republicans to find out what Democrats think. Or a sampling of Anabaptists to find out what Catholics think.

Unfortunately way too much of what passes for statistics these days is complete garbage, especially in the popular media where the people writing the stories are statistically illiterate and no one is actually checking their work to see if it holds up or even says what they claim it says.

And often what might be legitimate statistics is presented in a deliberately misleading fashion. Take the following graphic for example. Can you see what is wrong with it?



Hint...They started the Y-axis at 58 instead of zero and ran it up to 78 instead of 100 which greatly distorts the difference.

Or this graph which was commonly used in articles denying climate change. What is wrong with it?



Hint, they deliberately started with 1998 which was an unusually warm El Nino year and ended in 2012 which was an unusually cold La Nina year. If you back out and look at a longer time series you get this with the part that they choose to use circled in red.

[Grace]

Often things are exaggerated to put emphasis on a statement and believed to be acceptable. But is exaggerating and using hyperbole not distorting truth for special affect and in doing so, is actually lying, stating something that is factually untrue ?

Was Jesus exaggerating to put emphasizes on a statement or distorting something for special affect when he said in Matthew 18:9;

"And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire."

Or Matthew 5:30;

"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell."

We know he was using Hyperbole to make a point that if there in sin in one's life to do something drastic about it. He certainly didn't mean people should gouge their eyes out or chop their hands off. This shows that exaggeration and hyperbole can be used if the listener understands that it is just that. Exaggeration to deceive is a different story.

[Sudsy]

Often things are exaggerated to put emphasis on a statement and believed to be acceptable. But is exaggerating and using hyperbole not distorting truth for special affect and in doing so, is actually lying, stating something that is factually untrue ?

Was Jesus exaggerating to put emphasizes on a statement or distorting something for special affect when he said in Matthew 18:9;

"And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire."

Or Matthew 5:30;

"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell."

We know he was using Hyperbole to make a point that if there in sin in one's life to do something drastic about it. He certainly didn't mean people should gouge their eyes out or chop their hands off. This shows that exaggeration and hyperbole can be used if the listener understands that it is just that. Exaggeration to deceive is a different story.

Perhaps one could also say that Jesus was indicating that obtaining eternal life and escaping hell is so important that even if it required doing such things it would still be worth it to do them and in that sense would it be hyperbole ? But I agree Jesus did use hyperbole.

[Grace]

Perhaps one could also say that Jesus was indicating that obtaining eternal life and escaping hell is so important that even if it required doing such things it would still be worth it to do them and in that sense would it be hyperbole ?

I can’t imagine that Jesus was advocating for self-mutilation beings an amputee or blind person can definitely still sin. I think he was stressing figuratively that we should be willing to cut anything out of our life that is spiritually harmful and tempts us to sin. Purging our lives of something that tempts us to sin may be painful, but it will protect us from the sort of thinking and situations that can lead to serious spiritual harm.

Jesus used parables and hyperbole when he spoke. This was done to make a point using something the people related to.

[MaxPC]

Often things are exaggerated to put emphasis on a statement and believed to be acceptable. But is exaggerating and using hyperbole not distorting truth for special affect and in doing so, is actually lying, stating something that is factually untrue ?

Was Jesus exaggerating to put emphasizes on a statement or distorting something for special affect when he said in Matthew 18:9;

"And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire."

Or Matthew 5:30;

"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell."

We know he was using Hyperbole to make a point that if there in sin in one's life to do something drastic about it. He certainly didn't mean people should gouge their eyes out or chop their hands off. This shows that exaggeration and hyperbole can be used if the listener understands that it is just that. Exaggeration to deceive is a different story.

Perhaps one could also say that Jesus was indicating that obtaining eternal life and escaping hell is so important that even if it required doing such things it would still be worth it to do them and in that sense would it be hyperbole ?

Agreed.
In my perspective, when I consider the teachings within the book of Matthew, Jesus used hyperbole based upon some popular cultural idioms of the day to convey a concept vividly; His intentions were not self-centered but rather "other-centered" so that His disciples could understand the teaching. It is good to remember that Jesus was teaching some rather advanced heavenly concepts to a group that often did not have much more than a basic education. The use of local idioms in hyperbole is recognised as an effective tool for such. I am sure that Neto can convey more on the use of local idioms than I can, but Neto's experiences with the Banawa are an excellent example of this teaching method. (Thank you, Neto, for providing that insight).

Also within my perspective, exaggeration is used for selfish-purposes: self-importance, self-promotion, ambition to win, etc. Whether it is the exaggeration and overuse of statistics or charts or graphs, to extrapolate a personal viewpoint, I do not think that would be something that is consistent with Matthew 5 as Jesus taught it:

37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

[Sudsy]

Was Jesus exaggerating to put emphasizes on a statement or distorting something for special affect when he said in Matthew 18:9;

"And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire."

Or Matthew 5:30;

"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell."

We know he was using Hyperbole to make a point that if there in sin in one's life to do something drastic about it. He certainly didn't mean people should gouge their eyes out or chop their hands off. This shows that exaggeration and hyperbole can be used if the listener understands that it is just that. Exaggeration to deceive is a different story.

Perhaps one could also say that Jesus was indicating that obtaining eternal life and escaping hell is so important that even if it required doing such things it would still be worth it to do them and in that sense would it be hyperbole ?

Agreed.
In my perspective, when I consider the teachings within the book of Matthew, Jesus used hyperbole based upon some popular cultural idioms of the day to convey a concept vividly; His intentions were not self-centered but rather "other-centered" so that His disciples could understand the teaching. It is good to remember that Jesus was teaching some rather advanced heavenly concepts to a group that often did not have much more than a basic education. The use of local idioms in hyperbole is recognised as an effective tool for such. I am sure that Neto can convey more on the use of local idioms than I can, but Neto's experiences with the Banawa are an excellent example of this teaching method. (Thank you, Neto, for providing that insight).

Also within my perspective, exaggeration is used for selfish-purposes: self-importance, self-promotion, ambition to win, etc. Whether it is the exaggeration and overuse of statistics or charts or graphs, to extrapolate a personal viewpoint, I do not think that would be something that is consistent with Matthew 5 as Jesus taught it:

37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

As I had added in my previous post 'I agree Jesus did use hyperbole' but somehow it didn't make it into these replies. Must be a timing issue.

That is an interesting text and my understanding here was with regard to using an oath to enhance a promise. Like 'I swear to God that I will -----' but if one only uses it occasionally it could mean that not all they say could be taken as truth. To me, this verse says don't do that kind of oath making.

Your point on exaggeration being used 'for selfish-purposes: self-importance, self-promotion, ambition to win' is well worth considering, imo, when we get into discussions here. And if I can't prove what I am using to make my arguments as truth, then I think they would be best presented with some phrase that suggest 'if this is true then' so they are not presented as indisputable truth.

When I think of Jesus use of words, many still didn't get what He was saying and perhaps He did this to get them to dig deeper into what He was intending them to understand. And I think some of it was so different than what they had been taught that they just didn't have ears to hear. We can have the same problem today.

I appreciate everyone's perspectives and explanations. Thankyou.

[steve-in-kville]

In my experience, often when we retell an event or story, we inject our own opinions or perception of the matter into it. Ever play whisper down the lane? Us Christian tend to not do so good at it