3 ms·

The idea that objective truth about reality not only exists but is accessible to the sufficiently enlightened, at least if they use the right "tools and framewo

The idea that objective truth about reality not only exists but is accessible to the sufficiently enlightened, at least if they use the right "tools and frameworks", is a bold philosophical thesis that has undergone quite a lot of criticism in the past few thousand years. The idea that advocates of 'perspectivism' are simply trying to confuse people is absurd. "There are not facts, only interpretations" people are just as passionate about trying to make themselves understood as anyone else. Your comment is exactly why it is so important that we continue to value free speech. Many people are utterly convinced that their views of reality represent absolute and objective truth, totally unaware of the philosophical assumptions underpinning their woldview. History is full of people convinced their view of reality represented absolute and objective truth. They seldom agreed. Giving such people the tools to censor their opponents is very dangerous. First, the set of people who are wielding those tools will inevitably change. Secondly, well, where they burn books, they will someday burn people.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
At no point I was trying to argue against free speech. Just about the notion that "lie is almost always a matter of perspective". I'm aware there has been criticism of the concept of objective reality in philosophy, but I'm also not aware of any framework of thought that would fit the observable reality better. In fact, all the progress of science and technology, as well as all communications we do with each other, are based on assumption that there is an objective reality which we can observe, and about which we can exchange information that lead us to create a consistent, shared view.
- specialist 8y ago
  I have no idea how to articulate these notions, please forgive. #1 While I think of myself as a Popperian, I've begun to adopt a "true enough to act now" view of the world. It's close to the notion "a good plan violently executed today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow". Mostly, I'm sick of the debate. I have relatives and friends who are creationists, climate change deniers, supply-siders, etc. Instead of trying to convince (persuade) people about the truth, opposing the torrent of bullshit forces pushing these idealogical rocks up hill, I now focus on "ok, what can we do today?" In the case of evolution (vs creationism). The value of the theory isn't that it's true (or not). Rather, the value is a set of axioms that allows us to make reasonably good predictions about the world. So when it comes to the complicated topics (eg current events), I'm trying to relax my standards for objective truth, be satisfied with "true enough, for now". #2 We need more data. (aka You can't manage what you can't measure.) I was a tree hugger when GIS and satellite imagery were being rolled out. They completely changed the conversation about clearcutting, habitat loss, impacts, etc. It was no longer a just propaganda war. Legislators could see for themselves, if they wanted to, what was happening. #3 Stop fighting "fake news". There's a better way. Verifiable attribution, sources. All source data needs to be published. Every publisher (that wants to be verifiable) would have their own blockchain(s), sign their own works. Whenever a reader sees a news item, they could verify the authenticity by checking the block chain. This is no different than adding SHAs to software releases. Each blockchain would be seeded with a CA, leveraging our current chain of trust infrastructure. #4 Also, the story is made in the edit. So publishers need to show their work. Just like in science. Sure, cut down a two-hour interview to just 5 minutes. But you still have to post the original footage. #5 No one challenged my abandonment of "free speech ultimatism." So what's the alternative? Recognizing that cognition is social, that we (mostly) cohabitant a shared reality: Defending public discourse from the abuses of free speech is a tragedy of the commons [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons]. This framing goes further than Paradox of Tolerance [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance] by justifying the limitation of some speech in service of the greater good. [Maybe call it the "marketplace of ideas" to engage the Freedom Markets™ zealots.] I have no idea how to police the commons. But I do think punishing parties for knowingly lying would be a good start. There was a time when FCC broadcast licenses where contingent on serving the public good. And license renewals were serious business. I'd be okay with doing the same for online mediums as well. There would be two classes of speech: anonymous and verified (per #3 above). Verified speech, and the aggregators, would vouch for what they say. If someone is found guilty of using verified speech to harm the public good (jury of their peers, public hearings), their root CA would get revoked. They can still publish anonymously, of course. But they can no longer claim to be telling the truth. --- Okay. Thanks for listening, humoring me. I have these notions rattling around in my head. And I like your comment history. And wanted to share with someone(s), in case I get hit by a bus.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    That's a great analysis. And I like the recommendation. Liars with verified true speech get their CAs revoked. Love it.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Upon reflection, that is truly a great analysis! I just read Larry Sanger's Everipedia proposal, and believe that the concept of trust revocation would be a useful addition. Would you be interested in fleshing it out as an Everipedia page? If you're not editing Everipedia yet, I can help you with that. Anonymously,if you like. Or I could write the page, with your permission and perhaps input.
    - specialist 8y ago
      Thank you for the Everipedia tip. Hmmm, very interesting. Sending you a PM via email.
michaelt 8y ago
Interesting. Would someone who applies that philosophy be willing to say flat-earthers are wrong?
- specialist 8y ago
  I now believe this is a question better posed to psychiatrists.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

At no point I was trying to argue against free speech. Just about the notion that "lie is almost always a matter of perspective". I'm aware there has been criticism of the concept of objective reality in philosophy, but I'm also not aware of any framework of thought that would fit the observable reality better. In fact, all the progress of science and technology, as well as all communications we do with each other, are based on assumption that there is an objective reality which we can observe, and about which we can exchange information that lead us to create a consistent, shared view.

specialist 8y ago
I have no idea how to articulate these notions, please forgive. #1 While I think of myself as a Popperian, I've begun to adopt a "true enough to act now" view of the world. It's close to the notion "a good plan violently executed today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow". Mostly, I'm sick of the debate. I have relatives and friends who are creationists, climate change deniers, supply-siders, etc. Instead of trying to convince (persuade) people about the truth, opposing the torrent of bullshit forces pushing these idealogical rocks up hill, I now focus on "ok, what can we do today?" In the case of evolution (vs creationism). The value of the theory isn't that it's true (or not). Rather, the value is a set of axioms that allows us to make reasonably good predictions about the world. So when it comes to the complicated topics (eg current events), I'm trying to relax my standards for objective truth, be satisfied with "true enough, for now". #2 We need more data. (aka You can't manage what you can't measure.) I was a tree hugger when GIS and satellite imagery were being rolled out. They completely changed the conversation about clearcutting, habitat loss, impacts, etc. It was no longer a just propaganda war. Legislators could see for themselves, if they wanted to, what was happening. #3 Stop fighting "fake news". There's a better way. Verifiable attribution, sources. All source data needs to be published. Every publisher (that wants to be verifiable) would have their own blockchain(s), sign their own works. Whenever a reader sees a news item, they could verify the authenticity by checking the block chain. This is no different than adding SHAs to software releases. Each blockchain would be seeded with a CA, leveraging our current chain of trust infrastructure. #4 Also, the story is made in the edit. So publishers need to show their work. Just like in science. Sure, cut down a two-hour interview to just 5 minutes. But you still have to post the original footage. #5 No one challenged my abandonment of "free speech ultimatism." So what's the alternative? Recognizing that cognition is social, that we (mostly) cohabitant a shared reality: Defending public discourse from the abuses of free speech is a tragedy of the commons [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons]. This framing goes further than Paradox of Tolerance [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance] by justifying the limitation of some speech in service of the greater good. [Maybe call it the "marketplace of ideas" to engage the Freedom Markets™ zealots.] I have no idea how to police the commons. But I do think punishing parties for knowingly lying would be a good start. There was a time when FCC broadcast licenses where contingent on serving the public good. And license renewals were serious business. I'd be okay with doing the same for online mediums as well. There would be two classes of speech: anonymous and verified (per #3 above). Verified speech, and the aggregators, would vouch for what they say. If someone is found guilty of using verified speech to harm the public good (jury of their peers, public hearings), their root CA would get revoked. They can still publish anonymously, of course. But they can no longer claim to be telling the truth. --- Okay. Thanks for listening, humoring me. I have these notions rattling around in my head. And I like your comment history. And wanted to share with someone(s), in case I get hit by a bus.
- mirimir 8y ago
  That's a great analysis. And I like the recommendation. Liars with verified true speech get their CAs revoked. Love it.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Upon reflection, that is truly a great analysis! I just read Larry Sanger's Everipedia proposal, and believe that the concept of trust revocation would be a useful addition. Would you be interested in fleshing it out as an Everipedia page? If you're not editing Everipedia yet, I can help you with that. Anonymously,if you like. Or I could write the page, with your permission and perhaps input.
  - specialist 8y ago
    Thank you for the Everipedia tip. Hmmm, very interesting. Sending you a PM via email.

michaelt 8y ago

Interesting. Would someone who applies that philosophy be willing to say flat-earthers are wrong?

specialist 8y ago
I now believe this is a question better posed to psychiatrists.