Welcome! First let’s go over the basics of some words thrown around a lot and often used out of context. These words are facts, truths, opinions and possibilities. I plan to have sections of them for each blog.
What is a fact?
By the very definition, a fact is something known or proved to be truth.
It is something that is indisputable, a reality that is concrete and cannot be rejected due to the fact that no amount of reasoning can change them, they are not discovered or created, their existence is simply acknowledged.
Facts are objective, not subjective, so they cannot be influenced by emotions, opinions, or personal feelings, no matter what. They are proven without a shadow of doubt to be real and are verifiable through strong evidence.
Now, in this day and age of the internet we have to research twice as hard to the point of looking for a needle in a haystack because anyone can put anything online, and someone else is going to believe it, it does not make it fact though, or even truth for that matter. Facts can involve numbers, dates, and can even be testimonial, one example is “World War I ended in 1918”, you know this to be fact because there are countless records out there speaking of the “Treaty of Versailles” that ended it in November of 1918.
Facts are beyond arguments, they are presumed by the measuring devices, records and/or memories that are correct and they provide crucial support in the face of an argument. With that in mind, facts by themselves are worthless, we have to put them in context, draw conclusions, and give them meaning.
Technically, there are four types of facts; empirical, analytical, evaluative, and metaphysical.
Empirical
Empirical facts are verified by scientific observation; If I said that the Pacific Ocean is the largest ocean in the world, we would know it to be fact because geographers have measured the oceans and their conclusion was that the Pacific is the largest, that cannot be disputed.
Analytical
Analytical facts are verified by the rules of a symbol system; If I said 2+2=4 (Arabic) or X-VII=III (Roman), those numbers cannot be disputed, no matter where you are since math is a universal language, the only difference being Arabic or Roman numerals.
Evaluative
Evaluative facts are confused with opinions and even morality so they are a little more difficult to understand. They are verified by applying objective standards of value, such as the claim that theft is wrong, it may be verified by applying the standard of the right to own property. If someone says it is not wrong, steal something from them and see how they feel. The claim that theft is wrong is a statement about the validity of actions in the real world, and is really not just opinion because matters of right and wrong can be known objectively so they are not matters of opinion or even morality.
Another example is an appraiser of homes, jewelry, etc. that we rely on to assess the value of our homes, jewelry, etc. These experts use trained senses as well as have a wealth of knowledge and understanding in their field so their expert evaluations belong to the realm of fact, not just opinion.
These facts are very loose though because you can have two experts with two separate outcomes of value that something has, but still, it would fall under fact and either of their findings, would hold up as factual documentation when presented.
Metaphysical
Metaphysical facts can be confusing as well since metaphysics itself is too broad of a term (branch of philosophy that deals with abstract theory on the foundation and principle of things). They are verified by revealing and self-evidence. The claim that all men are created equal is verifiable by self-evidence, while the presence of angels or ghosts can be verified by revealing evidence as well as self-evidence. Accordingly, we assume those to be true without external evidence. It is the record of the communications of divinity with humanity, mainly found in religious traditions or sacred texts and expert judgment may be required to determine whether claims are true.
Facts are thrown around a lot and seem to be used out of context during discussions more times than not. One example is statistics, people like to point at them as facts to end an argument but in reality statistical numbers are disputable because numbers can fluctuate with each researcher, they are more of a ball park area, so they are hardly facts. Statistics can be truthful and great for comparative purposes but they alter depending on who is doing the research and what sources they used for their findings. Statistics are out there, that is a fact, but statistics themselves, are not, by the very definition. One can argue that statistics would fall in the realm of evaluative facts, they would fall into that confusion but their factual stance falls on the originator of those statistics. Anyone can make a statistical chart.
People will throw out “facts” left and right, from studies they read in class or other articles on the subject but those can be just as much truth, possibilities or just the opinion of the author. You can research events from hundreds of years ago and pass it off as facts because documentation will back you up, but considering you were not there and have no real proof that the author was, is it really a fact? Hardly, many historians dispute each other’s finding, as do scientists. People should tread lightly on the use of this word.
What is truth?
By the very definition, truth is an accurate statement of facts and reality. The difference between truth and facts is facts are permanent and cannot be disputed no matter how your viewpoint is, while truth is more temporary and tends to fall on one’s own perception of things such as a belief.
An example is if I said 2+2=4, that would be fact because it is the only result you can achieve for that question and no other answer can come from it, but if it was stated as 4=2+2 that would only fall under the realm of truth because you can have multiple results as 3+1, 6-2, 5-1, etc.
All facts are true, but not all truths are facts. Facts are objective, they just exist, while truths are subjective, they need to be observed.
What is an opinion?
By the very definition, it is a view or judgement of something not always based on facts or truth. It is a subjective perspective open to greater interpretation based on personal feeling and emotion.
An opinion is an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion from one’s own evidence. They can be potentially changeable, depending on how the evidence is interpreted, because by themselves, opinions have little power to convince others. With evidence, opinions are formed through interpretation. Without evidence, opinions are formed from possibilities.
Facts, truths and opinions are equally important but should not be confused with each other.
What are possibilities?
Possibilities are subjective scenarios that may have, or can, occur. They are born from the state of a likelihood and are found to be alternatives that can change truths and opinions. In reality we should all keep an open mind and try to look at all the possibilities and take them for what they are.
Exploring possibilities can help you acknowledge facts, perceive truths, and form opinions.
The long time debate of humans coming from creation or evolution goes hand in hand with religion vs science. More specifically, we are talking about the religious myth of creation versus the scientific theory of evolution.
There are not many subjects that can get a conversation heated up quite like this one and I want to provide some more critical theory to the matter because quite frankly, we should question everything on both sides and take it all with a grain of salt. In reality, both are possibilities in the existence of humans, but neither are definitive.
First off, creationism is defined as the belief that the universe and living organisms are from the divine creation of a supreme being or higher god to some cultures while evolution is the belief that organisms inherently improve themselves through progressive inherited change over time. It is really a question of origins, but how will we ever know for sure what our origins exactly were? Earth is billions of years old supposedly, and DNA, which tends to prove the scientific theories, is on record as lasting anywhere between two weeks to a million years depending on the preservation of it. To those that get heated, does it even matter if one is more truer than the other? Nobody really knows if we were created or just evolved randomly, was it purposeful intelligence that led to us or just a random result of cosmic accidents?
If you are a creationist and you disagree with the science, you are exposed as a religious fanatic trying to disprove science in order to redeem a religious worldview. If you are an evolutionist and disagree with creationism, you are exposed as a god hating, scientific nut job. The fact is, neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn’t really be called a “theory”, and the myth of creationism wouldn’t be just a “myth”, now would it? No matter what way you want to slice it, both are regularly subscribed to by speculation, assumption, belief and faith.
People can, and will believe what they want, but I will always have a hard time believing what any man says is over millions, or even thousands of years old and passes as complete, undisputed facts. Evolution is real, that’s a fact, but whether we evolved from the same ancestors as apes millions of years ago can be as “factual” as creationism, it is still a theory because it is a witnessed pattern assumed to occur long before it was witnessed, proof of evolution only goes so far back and one has to know how the DNA was even preserved that long to be tested properly. Oldest DNA on record was frozen in Greenland and that was supposedly from around five-hundred-thousand years ago, and it was plant DNA. Scientists, like historians, disagree all the time; pluto, the ocean, mars, solar system in general, plants, etc. so how can we rely heavily on their research, which scientist is right? The one we want to be right? Same with religion, I’ve known many people with their own interpretations of the bible, it has been around man for too long to remain absolute truth in my eyes.
The only thing that truly matters from this discussion is that our views on morality, justice, purpose, humanity, obligation, and destination are closely tied to our views on human rights. Evolution teaches that as species evolve, they eventually will reach ideal population levels and superior species will eliminate inferior ones in a “survival of the fittest” way. In nature’s eyes, the weak and inferior members of a species should be eliminated for the preservation of superior bloodlines and for the conservation of essential resources.
Now, if humans are merely a species of animal, we have no natural value to this world and are therefore by no means exempt from “the war of nature” either. Look no further than the likes of Hitler or Stalin who set out to eliminate what they felt were inferior members of the species that were multiplying. A British anthropologist and anatomist known as Sir Arthur Keith even came to Hitler’s defense at one point, claiming Hitler of being an uncompromising evolutionist and believing we needed to seek deeper into evolution to understand his actions because Hitler was an evolutionist. Stalin, another known evolutionist, surpassed even Hitler in zeal, murdering at least ten times as many “inferiors”. You can see how a worldview can impact human behavior. Here, we see murder, a most disapproved human behavior, not only condoned, but encouraged by some people, because they too felt the inferiors of their species should be eradicated.
It really is an age old question that I don’t believe can ever really, truly, be answered, so why are people on one side or the other so quick to cast stones to their opposition? Investigate the evidences for yourself but I don’t believe anyone should be adamant on either subject one way or another, just recognize the possibility of each, both are much more beyond general human comprehension and there is no way to know whether the “proof” provided is actual proof. Going back millions of years, for which we have no idea about, it is possible that creationism started it and evolution continued it, who are we to confirm or deny?
Now, all this leads us to the “Big Bang” theory where supposedly all matter in the universe was compressed in an infinitely dense and hot mass, known as a “singularity”, which exploded and spread all the mass and energy it had stored to what our universe is today, as well as space, itself. Some would say the big bang is nothing more than a counter to the bible, such as “how a universe without God is created”. If the big bang is true, how did that cosmic egg known as the singularity come to be? Something had to have created it, right?
One thing for certain is one is required to lay aside his “common sense” in order to accept the foregoing incomprehensible speculation because neither theory has factual credibility, biblically or scientifically, they are merely possibilities and therefor should not have such solid lines drawn in their defense. You could say you give evolution a slight edge because we have witnessed it, but to believe evolution fully, you have to believe that something created the origin at some point. As Pope Francis said; “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
Almost like saying “God created the football, the nature of evolution ran with it”.
Start thinking outside the box, there is more than one way to view something, anything, and everything. I’m not saying you have to accept what you don’t believe, I’m just saying you cannot dismiss it, just because you personally, do not believe it.
What is more important; Higher education from a university/community college or a skill certification from a skilled trade school? While both are equally important for certain fields, I would give the edge to the skilled trade simply because the skill would payoff quicker.
Say two people, same age, one goes to a college (X), the other goes to trade school (Y); four-six years later X is graduated and can potentially walk right in a job making six figures but probably has a lot of school debt too, while Y has most likely already paid off the school debt and is considered a master of the art, if they own a successful business, they could potentially be making that same six figure salary.
Throughout history, society has taught us the myth that higher education is a necessity and is required for a successful life. Skilled work is just labor, grunt work. Higher education is the “be all, end all” in the working world, but when you think about it, the great “architect” needs the great “contractor” to build a home, the contractor, does not necessarily need the architect.
Knowledge is power and education is everything, I won’t argue that, but the best education and knowledge you will receive in life is beyond your typical “higher education” classroom setting. Skills that you possess and gain from teachers you deal with on an every day basis, outside of the typical classroom atmosphere will define your true knowledge of things and the skills necessary to accomplish them. You can read a manual how to do something a hundred times but you will not be skilled in actually completing the task until you do it 100 times. Experience is invaluable.
Now, does higher education from certain colleges/universities automatically lead to higher employment or better jobs? Yes, and No, in reality it really doesn’t but depending on your social standings, it may. Who you know can be just as, if not more important, than what you know, which means higher education itself, is a misleading proxy for economic performance. Knowledge is power, but knowledge from college is no guarantor of success. Growing numbers of informed observers still consider college and/or university educations a great investment for attendees, but are they correct? It’s debatable.
Many employers have serious gaps between the “elite” educated credentials and real personal competence. That, I have seen firsthand, I’m sure we all have. Classroom records loaded with top grades show much less about a candidate’s capabilities than most serious employers need, or want, to know. Now, while some would say degrees are worth every penny, others would say even top-tier degrees say more about importance of credentials than about a greater capacity of being a good leader. It’s the illusion; you can lack complete common sense and understanding but, because you have this degree it is as if you are now exempt from stupidity, which again, is just not true.
Skilled tradesmen on the other hand are hand picked, recruiters know what they are getting with them because they can convey their skills through presentation and work history, whereas, with college graduates, you can’t. If you look at three applicants that all have the same degree, in the same field, how would you choose the right one? By determining what school they came from? Now flip it, three applicants with the same skilled trade, from three different companies, you could choose the right one by contacting those companies or looking into their jobs much more easily than you can looking at the graduate’s background.
The formalities of higher education as opposed to its networks of friends and connections may have less value than they did a decade ago. Alumni networks can prove more economically valuable than what one studied in class to get ahead in life, so in reality “where you went” may prove more professionally helpful than “what you learned”. That certainly undermines the “value of education” arguments, doesn’t it?
While higher education itself, isn’t marginal or unimportant, its real market impact on employment prospects is misunderstood. These days you can honestly say time spent cultivating your Facebook/Linked-In network(s) can be a better investment than taking certain electives… think about that.
Education committees have done an awful thing to capital conversations and analyses around employment. By championing higher education as the key to economic success, they have distorted important public policy debates about how and why people get hired and paid well in the first place. They have undermined useful arguments about “street smarts” versus “book smarts”. Treating education as the best proxy for capital is like using patents as your proxy for measuring innovation. Its underlying logic shouldn’t conceal the fact that you’ll under-weigh market leaders. You can look to billionaires like Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Dell’s Michael Dell, Apple’s Steve Jobs, Oracle’s Larry Ellison and even Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and note that they are all college drop-outs. They were skilled entrepreneurs. The point here isn’t to declare a college degree unnecessary to launching a high-tech juggernaut, but to see that, perhaps, higher education isn’t essential to effective entrepreneurship and it is actually the skills you possess that will be your guarantor of success.
Policy makers jabber about the need to educate people to compete in knowledge-intensive industries, but knowledge doesn’t even represent half of industrial challenges these days. What really matters these days are the skills you acquire through trial and error and the teachers you are blessed to learn from in day to day challenges. The undervalued capital issue here isn’t quality education in school but quality of skills in markets and quality of teachers in your daily venture. Every person can be a teacher in one way or another just as any task can help you acquire skills but a degree should not be the “be all, end all” when it comes to measuring success because that has been proven to be false, time and time again.
A computer science PhD doesn’t automatically make one a good programmer. There is a world of difference between getting an “A” in robotics class and winning a “bot” competition. Great knowledge is not the same as great skill. Worse yet, great knowledge doesn’t even guarantee decent skills. Unfortunately, the committees and policy makers behave as if college degrees mean their recipients can write and that Philosophy degrees mean their holders can rigorously think, and that is just not true.
I am not knocking higher education in itself, but you can say I am knocking the society that values the degree overall because it’s just a fact that it is the skills that everyone has that determines how far a job, project or task will go. On paper and in your mind a project can go on forever, but in reality, your skills will limit what you do in the long run. It is not the potential of your project that employers concern themselves with, it’s the reality of it. Look a little deeper and even the brightest minds hand off their paper to the high skilled workers to have those thoughts brought to life. The architect needs contractors to build the home, the contractors do not necessarily need the architect… think about that.
There’s no shortage of “well- educated” college graduates who can’t write intelligible synopses or manage simple spreadsheets. There are doctoral candidates in statistics and operations research who find adapting their technical ability to messy, real problem solving extremely difficult which proves great knowledge doesn’t confer great skill. Nevertheless, you would most likely find their research and their resumes impressive, as well you should, but focusing on their formal accomplishments misrepresents their skill set outside of the academies.
Academic and classroom markets are profoundly different from business and workplace markets. Why should anyone be surprised that serious knowledge/skill gaps dominate those differences? Higher education institutions do decently with transmitting the principle knowledge but, unfortunately, they do minimal in transmitting actual skills. I believe human capital debates and investment policies going forward should weigh skills over knowledge because when you look at who is getting hired, knowledge almost always, matters less than demonstrable skills in the workforce. The distinctions aren’t subtle; they’re immense, ask around.
These hires don’t have resumes highlighting educational pedigrees and accomplishments; their resumes emphasize their skill sets. Instead of listing aspirations and achievements, these resumes present portfolios around performance. They link to blogs, published articles, PowerPoint presentations, podcasts and seminars the candidates produced. The traditional two-page resume has transformed into a personal productivity portal in some fields and that empowers prospective employers to literally interact with their candidate’s work. This simultaneously compliments and reinforces the employer-side due diligence that’s emerged during this recession. Firms have both the luxury and necessity to find the best possible candidates for open positions. Yes, they’re looking for appropriate levels of educational accomplishment but really, what they most want are people who have the skills they need. More importantly, they want to actually see those skills show in the real world through technology, design and/or presentation.
Professional service firms don’t hesitate to ask a serious candidate to show their sincerity and skills by asking them to show how they might “adapt” a presentation for one of the company’s own clients. Verbal fluency and presence impresses headhunters and interviewers, but the ability to show one’s professional skills increasingly matters more. This is part of the vast structural shift in the human capital marketplace worldwide. Firms have the incentive for far more selective hires like project managers and professionals who also have the bandwidth and, want to showcase their skills.
You won’t learn skill in most typical classroom atmospheres and you won’t gain skills through Linked-In or Facebook but you will through trial and error and paying attention to those in your daily ventures that already possess those skills. Skills are how human capital markets will become more efficient and effective in the future.
Given our recent state of affairs, there has been a lot of talk about free college tuition but what about trade-schools? There are a lot of people out there with degrees in fields they don’t intend to utilize, and therefor will not get paid for it, but you can’t find many, if any, that have gone to trade schools and not used their skills to make a paycheck. With a skilled trade, you have a job for life. With a degree, you have a base set salary, but no guarantee someone will pay you it.
In the battle of higher education vs skills, I will always give the edge to skills. Think about this; a master welder or mechanic can make as much as a doctor with about half the schooling and another good example is trade-schools tend to be much cheaper than colleges and universities.