4 ms·
Well it's a weird sort of problem because lots of knowledge is highly paradigmatic. In that within a certain paradigm it's true, outside of it is untrue or lab
by devoply 9y ago
Well it's a weird sort of problem because lots of knowledge is highly paradigmatic. In that within a certain paradigm it's true, outside of it is untrue or labelled as irrelevant. Like look at the paradigm of social justice, or conservative, or liberalism, communism, christian conservatives, ufo believers, russian nationalists, etc. Within each of these frames there are things that are true, which are absolutely false or at least somewhat false outside of them. The point here is that there was a paradigm that supported the status quo and generally worked that is now being challenged by fragmented paradigms that were before essentially censored or at least relegated as the political fringe which are now going more mainstream who are trying to assert dominance or at least relevance of their paradigm through what is termed fake news. This is bad news for those who run these systems because it means their power to control thoughts and force decisions, whether right or wrong, good or bad is diminished. Will it stay that or will they be able to reclaim their position? Remains to be seen. Also these fringe paradigms are being manipulated for power gains by players that before had no such ability such as Russia or China. Before such ability was only in the hands of the "good" guys.
- Natsu 9y agoOnly insofar as a lot of 'news' reporting is really opinion in disguise. The who/what/when/where of the story shouldn't be changing and only the fact that so many organizations fail to link to, e.g., official court rulings when they discuss a decision, or to full video of political proceedings they quote from, allows for that kind of variance. Think of Groklaw vs. normal legal coverage for example. One gave you every court document & context. The other brings on some random expert to give a few words and then starts printing reactions of random people on Twitter or whatever.
- devoply 9y agoMotivated reasoning guarantees that rationality is always colored with opinion and bias. Like look at the flat earth society for an ridiculous example of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
- Natsu 9y agoThat will change how people interpret facts, yes. But it can't really change whether, e.g., a court ruled for or against someone in a case.
- devoply 9y agoWell yes that's true. But you don't have to agree with what the court ruled, I was not trying to argue against your point... but in the real world many things in the real world are not about interpreting an agreed upon authorities decisions otherwise you are in that paradigm. Like for instance in this case you are a person operating in the paradigm of the law.
- Natsu 9y agoI guess we have different ideas of what 'news' is, then. To me, 'news' consists only of the objective facts and 'opinion' covers all the rest of the analysis. I normally care only about the 'news' portion and I look for links, video, etc. to verify those facts. The 'opinion' side of the stories is generally not of interest to me.