5 ms·

I love when facts contradict socially propagated truth, and we actually change our minds as a consequence. That update mechanism is one of the biggest sources o

by tw1010 9y ago

I love when facts contradict socially propagated truth, and we actually change our minds as a consequence. That update mechanism is one of the biggest sources of faith in humanity I can think of.

staplers 9y ago
However, this can lead to 'malware' updates being installed through seemingly trustworthy channels.
barrkel 9y ago
I find it rather more disturbing - that people rationalize explanations for various discovered "facts", and as our understanding changes and the "facts" change, just as easily come up with new rationalizations. It exposes rationalization as story-telling.
- RangerScience 9y ago
  Sure, but these two points of data make a pretty nice line: [My assumption is that] people (at large) did not update on socially propagated facts. Now they do. Maybe tomorrow it'll be further improvement. (Or, maybe it's not that people are improving, but that the social transmission now exists and people haven't changed...?)
visarga 9y ago
> That update mechanism is like gradient descent, for human culture.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  More like memetic evolution. It has no attachment to local maxima.
otakucode 9y ago
Any time I hear a very socially useful truth proposed, I get very wary. History is littered with ideas that were proclaimed to be true mostly only because it would be very useful if it were true. It's certainly no guarantee of illegitimacy, but if an idea comes along that basically says "hey, you know how your society likes to do X? Turns out that's the best!" I immediately enter high-skepticism mode. Everything from leaded gasoline to eugenics to the Industrial Revolutions views on the dangers of masturbation can be laid at the feet of people who so desperately wanted something to be true that they skimped on rigor and ended up leaving unimaginable suffering in their wake. When the doctor (I can never recall his name!) suggested other doctors wash their hands between performing autopsies and delivering babies, he was insulted and rejected, as the idea that doctors who wanted desperately to help their patients were responsible for the astronomically high rate of death of both mothers and infants was offensive. This is the opposite side of that coin.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  That's effectively Appeal to Consequences fallacy, though in both its usual (false rejection of an inconvenient truth) and inverse (false support of an appealing falsehood) forms. That's a useful counter-bias to have, though not an infallible one.
- yesenadam 9y ago
  Ignaz Semmelweis

by tw1010 9y ago

I love when facts contradict socially propagated truth, and we actually change our minds as a consequence. That update mechanism is one of the biggest sources of faith in humanity I can think of.

staplers 9y ago

However, this can lead to 'malware' updates being installed through seemingly trustworthy channels.

barrkel 9y ago

I find it rather more disturbing - that people rationalize explanations for various discovered "facts", and as our understanding changes and the "facts" change, just as easily come up with new rationalizations. It exposes rationalization as story-telling.

RangerScience 9y ago
Sure, but these two points of data make a pretty nice line: [My assumption is that] people (at large) did not update on socially propagated facts. Now they do. Maybe tomorrow it'll be further improvement. (Or, maybe it's not that people are improving, but that the social transmission now exists and people haven't changed...?)

visarga 9y ago

> That update mechanism is like gradient descent, for human culture.

marcosdumay 9y ago
More like memetic evolution. It has no attachment to local maxima.

otakucode 9y ago

Any time I hear a very socially useful truth proposed, I get very wary. History is littered with ideas that were proclaimed to be true mostly only because it would be very useful if it were true. It's certainly no guarantee of illegitimacy, but if an idea comes along that basically says "hey, you know how your society likes to do X? Turns out that's the best!" I immediately enter high-skepticism mode. Everything from leaded gasoline to eugenics to the Industrial Revolutions views on the dangers of masturbation can be laid at the feet of people who so desperately wanted something to be true that they skimped on rigor and ended up leaving unimaginable suffering in their wake. When the doctor (I can never recall his name!) suggested other doctors wash their hands between performing autopsies and delivering babies, he was insulted and rejected, as the idea that doctors who wanted desperately to help their patients were responsible for the astronomically high rate of death of both mothers and infants was offensive. This is the opposite side of that coin.

dredmorbius 9y ago
That's effectively Appeal to Consequences fallacy, though in both its usual (false rejection of an inconvenient truth) and inverse (false support of an appealing falsehood) forms. That's a useful counter-bias to have, though not an infallible one.
yesenadam 9y ago
Ignaz Semmelweis