If everyone thinks the other side is wrong, how do we figure out who’s actually right?

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Is it even possible to reach a shared understanding—or are we destined to live in parallel realities, each convinced of our own version of truth? It feels like there’s no objective place outside of our context to evaluate whose beliefs are closer to the truth.

This line of thinking is exactly how people talk themselves into nihilism
Remember, just because "everyone" claims the other side is wrong doesn't mean that all these claims are equally valid. The nice thing about this reality is that truth is not democratic or contextual, but objective. The fact that people are free to disagree doesn't invalidate or erase logic, evidence, or reality itself.
If two people make contradictory claims, they cannot both be right, at least one of them is wrong.
The good news is that you don't need some magical view from nowhere to evaluate ideas. What you need is consistent logic, non-contradiction, and a metaphysics that respects the law of identity (A is A).
People only live in parallel societies to the extent that they reject reason and trade truth away for comfort. The rest of us live in reality.

 

[dongykung]

Order of operations goes:
Definitions > logic > observations

If there's a conflict between two positions, start by checking if they're even talking about the same thing. If not, then the two sides might be mutually compatible anyway.
Next you try to find logical flaws with the two positions. If a conclusion doesn't follow from the core premises, then that conclusion is suspect regardless of whether the premises were true in the first place.
Once you have the definitions established and have verified that the logic is sound, then you can move on to figuring out if the facts the conclusion is based on are true. That requires research or experimentation.

this is the only answer nobody can complain about and doesn’t contradict anything else but only one problem is who do you trust to do the research? if you trust the research then experts say take the jab and that trans women are real women? how do you account for bias or the wrong answrs?

 

[Otterly]

Historically? You kill each other until one set of opinions is utterly subjugated and the winners declare themselves right and write the history books

 

[HOMO FOR LIFE RETURNS]

You join the side that will benefit you and your dick.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

who do you trust to do the research?

Anyone who can present their findings. Analyzing data is never a "who" question.

if you trust the research then experts say take the jab

The moment someone tells you that you "should" do something, they are leaving the realm of truth and falsehood and entering the realm of opinion. The scientific method will never say anything about what you, personally, should do about anything.

and that trans women are real women?

This is what I was talking about with the definitions thing. Whether trannies are women depends entirely on the definition of "gender" you happen to be using at the time. It says absolutely nothing about the nature of reality.

how do you account for bias or the wrong answrs?

Bias is irrelevant. People are biased. Get over it.
Analyze the data you're provided to the best of your ability and stop fixating on whether the person presenting it is biased. Bias is good if it's in support of the truth.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

That's why science was invented and logic was derived.

Real science, not the "woke" religion of The Science™.

 

[dongykung]

Anyone who can present their findings. Analyzing data is never a "who" question.

the world looks at big organizations like for example mental illness nobody will pay attention unless the findings come from the american psychiatrist association or some thing similar, the problems are you cant trust them always and they are the ones who gate keep this stuff

The moment someone tells you that you "should" do something, they are leaving the realm of truth and falsehood and entering the realm of opinion. The scientific method will never say anything about what you, personally, should do about anything.

your technically right but if they have real data that says to do something a doctor will still say you should do it and if its true thats agood thing

This is what I was talking about with the definitions thing. Whether trannies are women depends entirely on the definition of "gender" you happen to be using at the time. It says absolutely nothing about the nature of reality.

transgenders use word manipulation if it was gender like how you feel then they wouldn’t need gender reassignment surgery so they use words however they wanted to

Bias is irrelevant. People are biased. Get over it.
Analyze the data you're provided to the best of your ability and stop fixating on whether the person presenting it is biased. Bias is good if it's in support of the truth.

how do you trust if bias is in support of truth or not? it is just faith then

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

the world looks at big organizations like for example mental illness nobody will pay attention unless the findings come from the american psychiatrist association or some thing similar, the problems are you cant trust them always and they are the ones who gate keep this stuff

There's a lot to unpack with this...
I'll try to keep it short and say this is a thread about establishing truth and not establishing trust. Your concerns are valid but that's a different topic entirely. That said, there's nothing inherently stopping you, as a layman, from getting research published in an academic journal and it then becoming part of "The Science."

transgenders use word manipulation if it was gender like how you feel then they wouldn’t need gender reassignment surgery so they use words however they wanted to

And this is part of why I said check definitions first, then move on to logic before even bothering to verify facts. Neither of those things require "trust" in anyone. Understand what they're describing and then establish whether what they're arguing even makes sense.

how do you trust if bias is in support of truth or not? it is just faith then

Which is why I said bias is irrelevant. It just doesn't matter. You shouldn't treat bias as an indicator of wrongness. The more knowledge one acquires in a field the more strongly cemented certain biases will become. And that's neither a good nor a bad thing.

 

[ZealotCrustacean101]

Nobody is right or wrong, just more convincing. As to what it takes to convince others... I leave that up to you