3 ms·

Right. But seeing retreating glaciers after being told why they are retreating is still relying on something you were told. As long as we are being "told" we c

by unabst 10y ago

Right. But seeing retreating glaciers after being told why they are retreating is still relying on something you were told. As long as we are being "told" we can change the channel and choose our preachers. There is nothing that can stop anyone from doing so in a "free" country. The point is, normal people have no way of knowing about most things anyway, that it isn't just fake news that is fake, it's that news as we know it is unreal. That's why they need that story of a cute cat or a new study on coffee at the end. The battle against fake news isn't the hard part. It's the battle to legitimize their own that is turning out to be an uphill battle. And when you know you go for the cookie jar once in a while, it becomes even harder.

Intermernet 10y ago
I agree with your larger point "normal people have no way of knowing about most things", but the glacier example was pretty clear. Just the change in vegetation over the course of the valleys was a pretty obvious indication that a huge amount of the glaciers had retreated quite suddenly from their previous, well established positions. The moraine topology was another indicator. Even if you had never heard of "global warming" you'd look at these two signs and have suspicions that something fairly significant had caused a largish area of an entire country to increase in average temperature. You'd probably not initially blame it on human carbon emissions, but, if you had some understanding of global climate patterns in the short term, you'd probably assume that this wasn't happening as just a local effect. It's pretty difficult to locally melt all the glaciers in a few thousand square kilometers of land without changing the rest of the world's climate.
- unabst 10y ago
  Right. But to your advantage, here you've demonstrated how you've interpreting evidence to fit with other evidence and knowledge to strengthen your set of facts. Most people will not see what you saw and think what you thought. And this can be applied to everything really. Evidence is everywhere, though even if people saw it, they won't know what it says or how to measure it. With the internet we can go directly to the source for evidence. Sources can be completely open and transparent regarding their motives and research. And anyone who wishes to learn should be able to start with learning how to identify the bubbles of fake news and alternate facts. Then we'd be talking. Until then, most everything you hear is just somewhere on the BS spectrum.

by unabst 10y ago

Intermernet 10y ago

I agree with your larger point "normal people have no way of knowing about most things", but the glacier example was pretty clear. Just the change in vegetation over the course of the valleys was a pretty obvious indication that a huge amount of the glaciers had retreated quite suddenly from their previous, well established positions. The moraine topology was another indicator. Even if you had never heard of "global warming" you'd look at these two signs and have suspicions that something fairly significant had caused a largish area of an entire country to increase in average temperature. You'd probably not initially blame it on human carbon emissions, but, if you had some understanding of global climate patterns in the short term, you'd probably assume that this wasn't happening as just a local effect. It's pretty difficult to locally melt all the glaciers in a few thousand square kilometers of land without changing the rest of the world's climate.

unabst 10y ago
Right. But to your advantage, here you've demonstrated how you've interpreting evidence to fit with other evidence and knowledge to strengthen your set of facts. Most people will not see what you saw and think what you thought. And this can be applied to everything really. Evidence is everywhere, though even if people saw it, they won't know what it says or how to measure it. With the internet we can go directly to the source for evidence. Sources can be completely open and transparent regarding their motives and research. And anyone who wishes to learn should be able to start with learning how to identify the bubbles of fake news and alternate facts. Then we'd be talking. Until then, most everything you hear is just somewhere on the BS spectrum.