3 ms·

Seems pretty nihilistic, doesn't it? Even when things are hotly debated, objective reality continues to exist, and we owe it to ourselves to strive to understan

Seems pretty nihilistic, doesn't it? Even when things are hotly debated, objective reality continues to exist, and we owe it to ourselves to strive to understand and acknowledge facts.

oh_sigh 9y ago
Perhaps topics being hotly debated indicates that there is generally no easy answer one way or the other.
- MartinCron 9y ago
  I'm skeptical of that, people continue to debate (at least warmly, if not hotly) the shape of the planet. The fact that a debate exists is not proof that a legitimate debate should exist.
- gervase 9y ago
  Alternatively, it could also indicate that there are ulterior (financial, legal, etc) motives to obscuring the objective truth of the topic.
- sigmar 9y ago
  >Perhaps topics being hotly debated indicates that there is generally no easy answer one way or the other. Questions that are difficult to answer are debated by many, but not all questions that are debated by many are difficult to answer. For example- Earth is not flat.
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    I agree - I intended to word my statement in a way that didn't imply that debate meant that truth was hard to find, just that debate may point to the fact that the truth is hard to find.
- hitekker 9y ago
  Counterpoint: Vaccination's (non-existent) links with autism. The inflammation of that debate comes from those who wish to obfuscate an easy answer with a haze of deceit.
- quirkot 9y ago
  Apropos of little, I generally find that a topic being hotly debated is an indicator of low quality of questions being asked about it moreso than the difficulty of the answer. To use MartinCron’s example. “What is the shape of the earth?” is a high quality question as opposed to “What’s past the horizon?” “What keeps the sky and ground separated?” or “If I’m standing on the ground, what is the ground standing on?”
JoshCole 9y ago
It isn't nihilistic. It is honest. We do owe it to ourselves to acknowledge that reality continues to exist. So in keeping with that, it makes sense to acknowledge that in reality these fact checking websites can be compromised. They aren't a bastion of truth, even though they claim to be. In my personal experience, when fact checking political fact checking, three out of the four claims I investigated turned out to be highly misleading. Usually it was by the person doing the fact checking leveraging the fact that people wouldn't have full context. I'll give an example. Unemployment. Someone will say un-employment is higher then the statistic suggests, because the way the statistic is tracked has people who are unemployed for a long period removed from the listing. They will then give an estimate of the real statistic. The fact checking will say that this is a pants on fire lie, then cite the unemployment statistic. They will not address the central claim about how that statistic is recorded. In my estimation, these sites are largely propaganda. Or maybe I'm being too bold in saying that. I know there is research that suggests that people are literally less able to read statistics and think factually in the presence of their political opposition. If given charts to read, charts that disagree with political positions are more likely to be misread then those that don't. There might be more at play then an attempt at influence leverage on the part of the fact checkers. Either way, I'm inclined not to set the prior the current iteration of fact checking websites are an example of striving for truth and so deserve special value when updating what I believe. However, I tend to find that non-political and not hotly debated topics don't seem to have this problem of being frequently wrong. So when things aren't highly political, I probably will allow the use of fact checking, because if I'm striving for truth that is expedient.
- hsod 9y ago
  > In my personal experience, when fact checking political fact checking, three out of the four claims I investigated turned out to be highly misleading. Usually it was by the person doing the fact checking leveraging the fact that people wouldn't have full context. Care to share your results? If it's really 3/4 it should be very easy for you to provide many examples.
  - hitekker 9y ago
    I agree with your tone. Those who claim that most fact checkers are completely biased, will also claim that most mainstream media is "fake news", that <opposition ideology> is responsible for most social ills, that <person's ideology> is the eternal victim, and so forth. Recognizing that the truth is not on your political side requires both honesty and clarity of thought, which the average political ideologue is functionally incapable of.
hitekker 9y ago
I agree, the sentiment is absolutely nihilistic. "I don't think fact checking websites should present themselves as the only source of truth" is separate and reasonable argument to make. "I don't think fact-checking websites should get involved with controversies because it gets ugly" is a rationalization of ignorance. Yes, fact-checkers who lack credibility are terrible. We shouldn't listen to organizations that repeatedly mishandle or mishandle delicate subject matters. But the fact checkers who do do their research, who have a track record of being mostly correct in their appraisals, should we just condemn them to ignominy? Should we give up on knowing right from wrong, truth and untruth just because it's hard? Because it's difficult? Of course not. If we agree that the truth behind important subjects are worth knowing and worth spreading, then it follows that we need to support those who can spread it. Running away from critical thinking is no solution.
hsod 9y ago
I see it as more of an opportunistic application of solipsism under the guise of skepticism. Using doubt and uncertainty as a weapon to avoid responsibility or accountability. If the truth isn't on your side, attack the very concept of truth.
- hitekker 9y ago
  > If the truth isn't on your side, attack the very concept of truth. I'll remember this line. I'll also add that the purpose of "fake news" is not to make one take one side over another: it's to inhibit one's ability to discern between the sides. Fake News aims to cloud the debate, because that's the only way one side can win; if the people who can object and stop it are unable to tell up from down, and more meaningfully, right from wrong.

Seems pretty nihilistic, doesn't it? Even when things are hotly debated, objective reality continues to exist, and we owe it to ourselves to strive to understand and acknowledge facts.

oh_sigh 9y ago

Perhaps topics being hotly debated indicates that there is generally no easy answer one way or the other.

MartinCron 9y ago
I'm skeptical of that, people continue to debate (at least warmly, if not hotly) the shape of the planet. The fact that a debate exists is not proof that a legitimate debate should exist.
gervase 9y ago
Alternatively, it could also indicate that there are ulterior (financial, legal, etc) motives to obscuring the objective truth of the topic.
sigmar 9y ago
>Perhaps topics being hotly debated indicates that there is generally no easy answer one way or the other. Questions that are difficult to answer are debated by many, but not all questions that are debated by many are difficult to answer. For example- Earth is not flat.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  I agree - I intended to word my statement in a way that didn't imply that debate meant that truth was hard to find, just that debate may point to the fact that the truth is hard to find.
hitekker 9y ago
Counterpoint: Vaccination's (non-existent) links with autism. The inflammation of that debate comes from those who wish to obfuscate an easy answer with a haze of deceit.
quirkot 9y ago
Apropos of little, I generally find that a topic being hotly debated is an indicator of low quality of questions being asked about it moreso than the difficulty of the answer. To use MartinCron’s example. “What is the shape of the earth?” is a high quality question as opposed to “What’s past the horizon?” “What keeps the sky and ground separated?” or “If I’m standing on the ground, what is the ground standing on?”

JoshCole 9y ago

It isn't nihilistic. It is honest. We do owe it to ourselves to acknowledge that reality continues to exist. So in keeping with that, it makes sense to acknowledge that in reality these fact checking websites can be compromised. They aren't a bastion of truth, even though they claim to be. In my personal experience, when fact checking political fact checking, three out of the four claims I investigated turned out to be highly misleading. Usually it was by the person doing the fact checking leveraging the fact that people wouldn't have full context. I'll give an example. Unemployment. Someone will say un-employment is higher then the statistic suggests, because the way the statistic is tracked has people who are unemployed for a long period removed from the listing. They will then give an estimate of the real statistic. The fact checking will say that this is a pants on fire lie, then cite the unemployment statistic. They will not address the central claim about how that statistic is recorded. In my estimation, these sites are largely propaganda. Or maybe I'm being too bold in saying that. I know there is research that suggests that people are literally less able to read statistics and think factually in the presence of their political opposition. If given charts to read, charts that disagree with political positions are more likely to be misread then those that don't. There might be more at play then an attempt at influence leverage on the part of the fact checkers. Either way, I'm inclined not to set the prior the current iteration of fact checking websites are an example of striving for truth and so deserve special value when updating what I believe. However, I tend to find that non-political and not hotly debated topics don't seem to have this problem of being frequently wrong. So when things aren't highly political, I probably will allow the use of fact checking, because if I'm striving for truth that is expedient.

hsod 9y ago
> In my personal experience, when fact checking political fact checking, three out of the four claims I investigated turned out to be highly misleading. Usually it was by the person doing the fact checking leveraging the fact that people wouldn't have full context. Care to share your results? If it's really 3/4 it should be very easy for you to provide many examples.
- hitekker 9y ago
  I agree with your tone. Those who claim that most fact checkers are completely biased, will also claim that most mainstream media is "fake news", that <opposition ideology> is responsible for most social ills, that <person's ideology> is the eternal victim, and so forth. Recognizing that the truth is not on your political side requires both honesty and clarity of thought, which the average political ideologue is functionally incapable of.

hitekker 9y ago

I agree, the sentiment is absolutely nihilistic. "I don't think fact checking websites should present themselves as the only source of truth" is separate and reasonable argument to make. "I don't think fact-checking websites should get involved with controversies because it gets ugly" is a rationalization of ignorance. Yes, fact-checkers who lack credibility are terrible. We shouldn't listen to organizations that repeatedly mishandle or mishandle delicate subject matters. But the fact checkers who do do their research, who have a track record of being mostly correct in their appraisals, should we just condemn them to ignominy? Should we give up on knowing right from wrong, truth and untruth just because it's hard? Because it's difficult? Of course not. If we agree that the truth behind important subjects are worth knowing and worth spreading, then it follows that we need to support those who can spread it. Running away from critical thinking is no solution.

hsod 9y ago

I see it as more of an opportunistic application of solipsism under the guise of skepticism. Using doubt and uncertainty as a weapon to avoid responsibility or accountability. If the truth isn't on your side, attack the very concept of truth.

hitekker 9y ago
> If the truth isn't on your side, attack the very concept of truth. I'll remember this line. I'll also add that the purpose of "fake news" is not to make one take one side over another: it's to inhibit one's ability to discern between the sides. Fake News aims to cloud the debate, because that's the only way one side can win; if the people who can object and stop it are unable to tell up from down, and more meaningfully, right from wrong.