Claim: Any piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted, since it may well be proven false in the future.
Reason: Much of the information that people assume is factual actually turns out to be inaccurate.
Every small piece of proven information we acquire from the world is considered a fact. Even as a kid we were taught facts like ‘the plants are green due to photosynthesis’, ‘the world war 2 started because of Germany’ and many others. These facts have played an enormous role in shaping our opinions of the world. We reach our conclusions about something by implying the facts we know in that arena. The inconsistency in the given issue and perhaps in our day to day usage is of the definition of the term ‘fact’. Facts are supposed to be proven for them to be deemed as facts. And if they are proven, there’s no need for us to doubt them, since they won’t be disproved in the future, unless the methods used for proving the same weren’t credible.
Consider some quotidian examples of technological progress. The Wright Brothers came up with the idea of an airplane considering the fact that birds are able to fly because of the hollow bone they possess. They designed the plane using this information and were successful. The idea that birds have hollow bone was not just a conjecture but was universally known. Some scientist must have cut open a bird to discover the hollow bone inside it. The only way this piece of knowledge was going to be falsified in the future would be because of evolution perhaps, which wasn’t likely to happen in the foreseeable future at least. But if the Wright Brothers would have mistrusted the fact, they wouldn’t have been able to come up with a conducive technology that has made our lives so easy in terms of travel.
Technology maybe a trite and straight-forward example for the presented issue, but there are some topics where having trust on non-proven facts can actually be beneficial for mankind. One such topic is of spirituality. People believe in the presence of a Higher power and hence consider mythologies credible. No one knows if they actually are trustworthy as it is still a matter rife with contentions. But these very believes and stories imbibe in humans a sense of compassion towards others. There are very few humans on the planet who don’t fear God and this very fear helps them keep a check on their actions in the world. If everyone started mistrusting the presence of Almighty, there would be chaos all around. People would start doing inhuman actions without remorse or compunction.
Saying thus, sometimes questioning the seemingly obvious can get us closer to the truth. Before Copernicus and Galileo, people used to believe, and it was apparently scientifically proven that other planets and the Sun revolve around Earth. But the great philosopher Galileo questioned this belief, and went on to do his own research which helped him disprove the known theory and come up with the model of helio-centricity. Even though he mistrusted the prevalent ideas, he didn’t stop there but found out a reason for his mistrust and rectified it. Only rejecting known facts won’t get us anywhere unless we strive to do something about it.
Thus, instead of blatantly mistrusting facts, if we get an intuition of it being incredible, we have to go to the depth of the issue. There are times wherein we don’t believe something because of incomprehensibility as there are loopholes in our understanding regarding it. But if we are convinced about the origins and proofs of certain facts, we can absorb them to strengthen our opinions and understandings of the world.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 659, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had mistrusted'?
Suggestion: had mistrusted
...re at least. But if the Wright Brothers would have mistrusted the fact, they wouldn't have been ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, apparently, but, hence, if, may, regarding, so, still, then, thus, at least, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 14.8657303371 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 53.0 33.0505617978 160% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 78.0 58.6224719101 133% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2916.0 2235.4752809 130% => OK
No of words: 585.0 442.535393258 132% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98461538462 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.9180050066 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99144517703 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 304.0 215.323595506 141% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.519658119658 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 909.0 704.065955056 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 9.0 1.77640449438 507% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 20.2370786517 148% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.5089262872 60.3974514979 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.2 118.986275619 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.13333333333 5.21951772744 60% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.156116689907 0.243740707755 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0429765834211 0.0831039109588 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0581063569845 0.0758088955206 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0823463693791 0.150359130593 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0428315338113 0.0667264976115 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.1392134831 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.1639044944 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.17 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 100.480337079 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.