6 ms·

> Within two days of Trump assuming power, White House > officials have found themselves embroiled in a > scandal over “alternative facts”. Those weren't a

• danieltillett 10y ago
  Because this would require making a comparison to others.
  • netnichols 10y ago
    Hehe, exactly. "We had yuge crowds! The biggest crowds! At least when compared to Bush..."
• trombone22 10y ago
  The administration itself named their blatant lies "alternative facts", though I guess the media could be blamed for not reminding us strongly enough that we are discussing obvious lies.
  • lhnz 10y ago
    Yes, that is my point. Lies are lies. Facts are facts. The indiscriminate usage of the term by the mainstream media is a strategic mistake since they are giving ground to the frame of all facts being subjective and equally applicable. Remember that 'fake news' was quickly and effectively used by the alt-right to tarnish mainstream media. I expect 'alternative facts' will eventually be used against them, too. Also 'alternative facts' might be a position that the mainstream media needs to defend, if the current administration upped their game and began to mislead through selective usage of facts rather than more overt lying.
    • BlackFingolfin 10y ago
      "... of all facts being subjective and equally applicable" I guess you meant to write "objective" there instead of "subjective", at least otherwise I can't make sense from what you write... The thing is: Facts are, by definition, obective: "a thing that is known or proved to be true". However, their interpretation is not, and it may well be influenced by additional facts being revealed -- thus, whenver somebody says "given the facts, it is clear that XYZ holds", what they really mean (whether they are aware of it or not is another question) is "given the facts I am aware of, XYZ holds". But again: these are additional facts, not alternative facts. So all in all, I don't think your suggestion about an eventual legitimate need for the term "alternative facts" holds gound.
      • lhnz 10y ago
        Well, I think you misunderstand me. Subjective facts as-in those with different sources or ways of measuring information. For example, people can choose the scientific studies that they draw attention to, and find an expert that agrees with them. (Also, the way in which people use the term 'fact' often relates to empirical observation and this can be miscalibrated: what was considered objective fact sometimes gets disproved or constrained.) Alternative facts as-in alternative selections of facts. Not merely a case of adding facts, but also in not acknowledging the facts that you don't like. Aside: @smackay's comment is very close in meaning to what I wrote (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13480772 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13480772). You might find it easier to understand.
      • delecti 10y ago
        Reread the sentence: > The indiscriminate usage of the term by the mainstream media is a strategic mistake since they are giving ground to the frame of all facts being subjective and equally applicable They're saying that the media using the term "alternative facts" is giving ground to the very people who initially began spreading the lies, and in doing so is giving them an opening to exploit. Those people want to portray facts as subjective and all equally applicable. They aren't, and we should expect the the same people who started spouting "alternative facts" (read: lies) to begin branding actual facts as "alternative facts".
• smackay 10y ago
  Trump's campaign was based entirely on persuasion (populism for want of a better term). That "alternative facts" exists as a thing is just another play in the persuasion handbook to discredit the idea that there any real facts at all - only opinions seem to matter now. As a result any attempt to counteract "Trumpism" with facts and data is dead in the water already.
• pc86 10y ago
  I blame the media for a lot of this, honestly. If someone tells a lie, say "why did you lie about _____?" That's about 90% of why the media exists in the elevated status it has/had. But when a reporter on CNN says "Why did the Donald Trump tell the Press Secretary to come out and tell falsehoods?" that diminishes what actually happened. The PS lied on national television. Call him out on it. Use the word "lied" or "liar" and stop dressing it up by using terms like "telling falsehoods." When a liar is said to be "telling falsehoods" it's only one small step for them to reply with "alternative facts."
  • dgllghr 10y ago
    I agree with you -- this would help a lot. Good news, NYT story today: "Trump Repeats Lie About Popular Vote in Meeting With Lawmakers".
  • anotherturn 10y ago
    I wonder if the lawyers have a hand in this. Words like "liar" paint a person in a negative light and could lead to a defamation lawsuit. Whereas pointing out that something is a "falsehood" is inviting a comparison of facts - i.e. inviting Trump to prove he wasn't lying.
    • a_thro_away 10y ago
      That is what I understand; lie implies intent, which is impossibly hard to do. IMO the media is trying to being courteous, even delicate, when it is and should be an all out brawl, when the truth and fact are at stake.
      • mikeash 10y ago
        I kind of like the vocabulary they're using. Everybody knows politicians lie, and I don't think that word would have much of an impact. Repeating the term "alternative fact" and using terms like "believes... won't provide any proof" draws attention to just how absurd these particular lies are.
• hectorperez 10y ago
  "Actual alternative facts do exist because we often select the facts we represent based on our tribal affiliations" I wrote about this recently: "When we are interested in a topic and have time, we read about it and contrast different points of views. But when we don’t have time or are not interested in something, we believe what our culture, friends and influencers say. And we are so bombarded with information nowadays that we can’t get informed about everything all the time" [1] Do you think that a site tracking expert's opinions on important topics might help? That's what we are doing on AgreeList.com / Wikiopinion.org We haven't decided yet if it should be a for-profit startup or a nonprofit organisation. Do you think this would help to tackle fake news? [1] https://medium.com/@HectorPerez/wikipedias-social-network-578b0257b8ae#.s3xq3f4ul https://medium.com/@HectorPerez/wikipedias-social-network-57...
  • mistermann 10y ago
    I definitely think so, this sounds like what I think might be a big, big part of the solution to this problem. I would really hope that there's a threaded discussion component, and I would hope that differing opinions/theories are allowed (and critiqued, obviously).
    • hectorperez 10y ago
      Thanks for the feedback! Do you mean a threaded discussion per topic or per opinion?
      • mistermann 10y ago
        It's a very tough problem. Of course, there's going to be the typical reddit-like absolute nonsense bickering, deceit, lying, disingenuousness, half-truths, etc. But within this mess there is frequently some extremely good information. And then there's the academic/professional opinion, which would tend to be less verbose and higher quality, but then we know from experience that now and then these people are a little casual with the truth. I would like to see a site where people can go to (as much as is practically possible) solve disagreements on popular topics. Take climate change: I would like to see the problem clearly described in (as much as is practically possible) layman's terms, so the average voter can understand it. For those interested in more detail or technical depth, drill down hierarchically into deeper levels of documentation. Also, I would like to see any issues or loose ends raised by those who are not completely on board (aka "deniers", because only certain thoughts are allowed these days) debunked thoroughly, or left with a status of "we don't know how this fits into our theory". To me it would be tremendously more efficient if rather than bickering on the internet, we could simply link to the objective (reviewed by both "sides") facts. Wouldn't having a resource like this been a good idea for the Clinto campaign, rather than hiring people to infiltrate internet forums? It makes me wonder why this approach wasn't taken.
• randomgyatwork 10y ago
  Technically if you were pressing an alternative theory than you would be using 'alternative facts.' Facts are tools or pieces to build something, such as a theory. We all experience alternative realities and use our 'alternative facts' to justify our beliefs. We all literally do this every single day. As a libertarian or a marxist one has 'alternative facts' about the nature of humans, society and the environment, from there they build up their world.
  • baq 10y ago
    alternate beliefs, maybe. my definition of facts doesn't require anyone to exist for them to be true.
    • dingaling 10y ago
      'Facts' don't have an independent objective existence, unfortunately. 'Things that occurred' ( the literal etymology of 'facts' ) always require some form of interpretation in order to bring them into our domain of comprehension, and that's where the fuzziness enters. In epistimology one discusses 'justified belief'; an apparently valid belief obtained in a repeatable and seemingly rigorous manner. But still subject to interpretation through our lens of 'knowledge'. Think about the current cosmological debates about Dark Energy. Something like 5,000 papers have been published; it seems to be a 'fact' that Dark Energy exists and exerts an influence, but in 200 years from now we might have a justified belief that it does not as some aspects of relativity were incorrect.
      • lhnz 10y ago
        > 'Facts' don't have an independent objective existence, > unfortunately. 'Things that occurred' ( the literal > etymology of 'facts' ) always require some form > of interpretation in order to bring them into our > domain of comprehension, and that's where the > fuzziness enters. That etymology is exactly how I understand facts, too. But I think many people don't use the term in that way. For example, "It's 3:56 pm in the UK" is a fact in my mind. (It won't be the case in a minute of course.) The way I see it: facts are like memoized predicates. They are statements of truth within a particular context. Often they need to be re-executed to be kept fresh.
• redler 10y ago
  There are only three possibilities I can see: 1) The President and his staff are mistaken, but honestly believe what they say 2) The President and his staff are lying, and know they are spreading falsehoods 3) The President and his staff are delusional What other options are there? If (1) is the case, and the actual facts are presented and they refuse to believe them, that would also seem to imply (3).
  • iconjack 10y ago
    4) The President and his staff are correct, despite prevailing opinion of scientists and media.
    • davexunit 10y ago
      No, that's not possible.
    • redler 10y ago
      That's possible, but the premise of these three points is how they deal with facts that they -- ok, almost certainly "he" -- does not like. That they are willing to outright lie to the world about simple facts that are plainly obvious even to a child (e.g. crowd size in photographs) does not bode well for their representation of complex, nuanced, and consequential information. I suppose there is a fourth possibility: this is a dominance game for the President, forcing staffers to lie about his hobbyhorses, knowing millions will accept the pronouncements as truth, and winking at his infuriated opponents. If he'll say his crowd was the largest in history when it's plain to all that it was not, what will he say about some new "Presidential voter fraud investigation" whose conclusions will be used to further suppress the vote and "make him correct"? Edit: clarity
• mikeash 10y ago
  Trump doesn't strike me as the sort of boss who enjoys hearing contrary views from his minions. I imagine he told his press secretary to get out there and tell the media off for lying about his record-breaking inauguration numbers, and Mr. Spicer went and did it. The man is remarkably insecure. Everything he does has to be the "best ever" or it's just not good enough. Having someone like that in charge scares me.
• munificent 10y ago
  > Actual alternative facts do exist because we often select the facts we represent based on our tribal affiliations. There are no alternative facts, only additional ones.