4 ms·

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 op

by 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".
    - zeteo 16y ago
      I disagree. "Authority" in "argument from authority" does not necessarily mean an expert, just that it's an argument whose validity depends on the character/reputation of the person making it. E.g., "he said/ she said" with a police officer, in front of a judge, is a losing proposition.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      They do that all the time, since it makes them seem more neutral. Take, for instance, this story on climategate: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.ht... "Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information." [Notably missing: quotes from Phil Jones asking people to delete emails and hide data.] The pressthink blog discusses this a lot. In short, reporters want to appear objective and savvy, and "he said she said" makes them look that way. http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/ http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/
      - jbooth 16y ago
        "Some skeptics" is exactly what I'm talking about. Regarding the whole climate thing -- it's a fact that the earth's temperature is rising. Whether CO2 is the primary driver is debatable, although it seems to make the most sense. Yet in articles about the thing, you see the idea of whether the earth's temperature is rising treated as a controversy. No. It's a fact. Splitting the difference between a fact and a lie isn't "teaching the controversy", it's enabling lies. EDIT: You're complaining about something different. They can't report every fact in every story, and they similarly didn't say anything about what various industry shills are contributing to the debate. Omitting very important facts is of course very serious - but it's a different class of screwup. Agree very much on the "objective and savvy". Hence you'll see some georgetown douchebag who hasn't left the beltway in 20 years lecturing people about what the "heartland" thinks, because it seems to play well in the media.
        yummyfajitas 16y ago
- nollidge 16y ago
  John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are two exceptions. It's absolutely riveting television (to me) to watch people being caught in their lies, but somehow those two guys have a millionth of the viewers of major cable news networks. EDIT: News networks, I might add, which have a tin ear towards hypocrisy. The simplest lie passes without criticism.

by zeteo 16y ago

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".
  - zeteo 16y ago
    I disagree. "Authority" in "argument from authority" does not necessarily mean an expert, just that it's an argument whose validity depends on the character/reputation of the person making it. E.g., "he said/ she said" with a police officer, in front of a judge, is a losing proposition.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    They do that all the time, since it makes them seem more neutral. Take, for instance, this story on climategate: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.ht... "Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information." [Notably missing: quotes from Phil Jones asking people to delete emails and hide data.] The pressthink blog discusses this a lot. In short, reporters want to appear objective and savvy, and "he said she said" makes them look that way. http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/ http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/
    - jbooth 16y ago
      "Some skeptics" is exactly what I'm talking about. Regarding the whole climate thing -- it's a fact that the earth's temperature is rising. Whether CO2 is the primary driver is debatable, although it seems to make the most sense. Yet in articles about the thing, you see the idea of whether the earth's temperature is rising treated as a controversy. No. It's a fact. Splitting the difference between a fact and a lie isn't "teaching the controversy", it's enabling lies. EDIT: You're complaining about something different. They can't report every fact in every story, and they similarly didn't say anything about what various industry shills are contributing to the debate. Omitting very important facts is of course very serious - but it's a different class of screwup. Agree very much on the "objective and savvy". Hence you'll see some georgetown douchebag who hasn't left the beltway in 20 years lecturing people about what the "heartland" thinks, because it seems to play well in the media.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
nollidge 16y ago
John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are two exceptions. It's absolutely riveting television (to me) to watch people being caught in their lies, but somehow those two guys have a millionth of the viewers of major cable news networks. EDIT: News networks, I might add, which have a tin ear towards hypocrisy. The simplest lie passes without criticism.