4 ms·

"I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have whe

by jbooth 16y ago

"I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen" He's right, of course, and that's why science is routinely beaten to a pulp in the media by those with an agenda who don't care about the truth.

jbert 16y ago
The honest suffer when everyone lies, true. That can be fixed by raising the cost of lying, rather than accepting it as the norm with consequences. Humans have a tool for this, it's called reputation. The more we accept, say, that all politicians are liars, the more both the honest and the listener suffer. We should be outraged when someone has been shown to lie. It should be a resigning matter.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Or at least when it's lying repeatedly and deliberately. Fox News shouldn't have an audience (this is not a statement about conservatism, it's a statement about Fox News). But if you're confirming people's biases, particularly regarding some "other" being the enemy (this week it's muslims in NYC), then the truth is going to take a back seat to that warm feeling of self-righteousness.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > Or at least when it's lying repeatedly and deliberately. Fox News shouldn't have an audience (this is not a statement about conservatism, it's a statement about Fox News). It's curious that you only mentioned Fox. Many of my progressive friends think that the NYT and ABC, CBS, and NBC shouldn't have audiences either, for pretty much the same reason.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      I'll stand by the statement.
- moultano 16y ago
  What I've realized is that people hate being bored more than they hate anything else, even being lied to.
- istari 16y ago
  You know how most people decide when someone is telling the truth? I agree with him = he's honest. I disagree with him = he's lying. Very few people care about object evidence that goes against what they believe in.
zeteo 16y ago
It's the nature of science to reject arguments from authority. It's a sure-footed, but tedious way to progress. The nature of mass-media is almost the exact opposite. Its incentives are to present a large volume of "fresh" information, even though 99.9% of it will be considered false or irrelevant in five years. From the reporter to the talk show guests, this information springs from a myriad of "authorities", and its veracity is wholly estimated by the reputation and rhetorical abilities of its sources. Thus, the media understands and interacts much better with other systems based on authority. Even when scientists appear on talk shows, they are brought over as "experts" - and promptly fail in this capacity with the first self-doubt they express. The good news is that, in the long run, all the authority-driven drivel evaporates as the "authorities" and their intellectual fashions change (even theology, with its scriptural basis, often differs significantly from one generation to the next). The hard scientific truths remain.
- jbooth 16y ago
  The mass-media recipe is either "whatever we think will help republicans" (Fox) or "He said, she said" (everyone else). There's almost nobody who's actually willing to call BS on a lie for it's own sake.
  - zeteo 16y ago
    Right, so "he said, she said" is the argument from authority that I referred to. (I'm not sure about Fox's intentions, but even they have to present their stuff in this format.) What this amounts to is that the (inherently lazy) audience picks and matches based on their previous opinions about the speakers, and on how rhetorically convincing the case is made each time. True science is fundamentally incompatible with this cognitive mode.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      "He said she said" isn't argument from authority - it's blind dictation. If one side is telling the truth, and the other is deliberately lying (the health care bill will form death panels), then by reporting a "he said she said", you're telling half of the lie. I saw an article in the NYT last week on the fact that 25% of the country apparently thinks Obama is a muslim. Not once in the article did they clarify that the man is, in fact, not a muslim. "Teach the controversy".

by jbooth 16y ago

jbert 16y ago

The honest suffer when everyone lies, true. That can be fixed by raising the cost of lying, rather than accepting it as the norm with consequences. Humans have a tool for this, it's called reputation. The more we accept, say, that all politicians are liars, the more both the honest and the listener suffer. We should be outraged when someone has been shown to lie. It should be a resigning matter.

jbooth 16y ago
Or at least when it's lying repeatedly and deliberately. Fox News shouldn't have an audience (this is not a statement about conservatism, it's a statement about Fox News). But if you're confirming people's biases, particularly regarding some "other" being the enemy (this week it's muslims in NYC), then the truth is going to take a back seat to that warm feeling of self-righteousness.
- anamax 16y ago
  > Or at least when it's lying repeatedly and deliberately. Fox News shouldn't have an audience (this is not a statement about conservatism, it's a statement about Fox News). It's curious that you only mentioned Fox. Many of my progressive friends think that the NYT and ABC, CBS, and NBC shouldn't have audiences either, for pretty much the same reason.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    I'll stand by the statement.
moultano 16y ago
What I've realized is that people hate being bored more than they hate anything else, even being lied to.
istari 16y ago
You know how most people decide when someone is telling the truth? I agree with him = he's honest. I disagree with him = he's lying. Very few people care about object evidence that goes against what they believe in.

zeteo 16y ago

It's the nature of science to reject arguments from authority. It's a sure-footed, but tedious way to progress. The nature of mass-media is almost the exact opposite. Its incentives are to present a large volume of "fresh" information, even though 99.9% of it will be considered false or irrelevant in five years. From the reporter to the talk show guests, this information springs from a myriad of "authorities", and its veracity is wholly estimated by the reputation and rhetorical abilities of its sources. Thus, the media understands and interacts much better with other systems based on authority. Even when scientists appear on talk shows, they are brought over as "experts" - and promptly fail in this capacity with the first self-doubt they express. The good news is that, in the long run, all the authority-driven drivel evaporates as the "authorities" and their intellectual fashions change (even theology, with its scriptural basis, often differs significantly from one generation to the next). The hard scientific truths remain.

jbooth 16y ago
The mass-media recipe is either "whatever we think will help republicans" (Fox) or "He said, she said" (everyone else). There's almost nobody who's actually willing to call BS on a lie for it's own sake.
- zeteo 16y ago
  Right, so "he said, she said" is the argument from authority that I referred to. (I'm not sure about Fox's intentions, but even they have to present their stuff in this format.) What this amounts to is that the (inherently lazy) audience picks and matches based on their previous opinions about the speakers, and on how rhetorically convincing the case is made each time. True science is fundamentally incompatible with this cognitive mode.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    "He said she said" isn't argument from authority - it's blind dictation. If one side is telling the truth, and the other is deliberately lying (the health care bill will form death panels), then by reporting a "he said she said", you're telling half of the lie. I saw an article in the NYT last week on the fact that 25% of the country apparently thinks Obama is a muslim. Not once in the article did they clarify that the man is, in fact, not a muslim. "Teach the controversy".