4 ms·
The article first says that "Academic leaders and technologists wonder if faster fact checking might solve the problem", implying that false information is not
by fouric 8y ago
The article first says that "Academic leaders and technologists wonder if faster fact checking might solve the problem", implying that false information is not the problem, and then "the human mind is the territory" - if you're fighting over peoples' minds, and using factually true information, then what is the problem? That sounds like logical persuasion to me.
(obviously, I'm missing some nuance - I was hoping that a more intelligent HN denizen would be kind enough to point it out to me)
- TeMPOraL 8y ago> if you're fighting over peoples' minds, and using factually true information, then what is the problem? That sounds like logical persuasion to me. The problem is that facts are almost entirely irrelevant in this fight. For most humans, truth only matters where the impact of being wrong is immediately and painfully visible. In all other cases, beliefs are primarily social objects - means for maintaining relationships with people, participating in groups, and signalling values[0]. Beyond false information, a lot of words are put on-line to mess up with people's epistemology - the framework we use to determine what beliefs are accurate. The most visible result is people ignoring facts staring them in the face, having a million excuses to believe what they want to believe. You can't win a war with facts, when people don't agree on the most basic concept that facts should determine their beliefs. -- [0] - If you don't believe this, consider all the many little things that you know your family & friends are wrong about, but that you deemed not important enough to correct those people on.