4 ms·

I'm not an expert but I think this is a pretty gross mischaracterization of these philosophical bents, sort of like quoting "I think therefore I am" and going a

I'm not an expert but I think this is a pretty gross mischaracterization of these philosophical bents, sort of like quoting "I think therefore I am" and going about telling people that Descartes was purely a solipsist. There's something to it, but it's not the whole truth, and in a sometimes-violent climate of name-calling (and worse) I think it can be damaging when misinformation is wielded as a club against political opponents like this.

PinkMilkshake 8y ago
> gross mischaracterization of these philosophical bents Could you please explain? I don't think I misrepresented anything, but I'm open to correction. I'm no expert either, but I have explored these ideas and I feel like I gave fair summary. > but it's not the whole truth True, it was a summary of what I felt were the relevant points. > misinformation I don't think what I said is even particularly controversial, least of all misinformation. It's just not well known. Most of what I said is explicitly stated by the people who hold those beliefs.
torstenvl 8y ago
Explain, then, the epistemology that leads someone with a degree in international relations and economics to say that being morally right is more important than being factually correct? I agree that misinformation can be wielded like a club; I disagree that GP is the one doing so.
- greesil 8y ago
  Isn't that a false dichotomy?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- jackvalentine 8y ago
  If you're going to throw quotes or references to news in to conversations out of nowhere at least source them. For those playing at home: he's quoting stripped of context Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Watch the video here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/06/ocasio-cortez_people_being_more_concerned_about_me_being_factually_correct_than_morally_right.html?jwsource=cl http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/06/ocasio-cor...
  - leereeves 8y ago
    What about that context contradicts torstenvl's interpretation? It seems to me that saying that Washington Post fact-checkers are "more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right" is one step away from saying they are morally wrong, an example of the "post-fact" attitude that holding the right position is more important than reality. I suppose it was inevitable that when fact-checkers became inconvenient for politicians, politicians would attack them. How long until the same thing happens in academia and STEM is attacked for caring more about facts than being "morally right" according to someone's personal definition of morality? People who still care about facts need to stand up to those who don't, lest facts cease to matter entirely. Edit: In response to the claim that the WaPo is being "pedantic" and "petty", I should include their response: > The first problem here is that Ocasio-Cortez is really minimizing her falsehoods. Four Pinocchios is not a claim that Glenn Kessler and The Post’s Fact Checker team give out for bungling the “semantics” of something. It’s when something is a blatant falsehood. It’s the worst rating you can get for a singular claim. ... > What might be most problematic about Ocasio-Cortez’s defense, though, is the idea that people should care less about specific facts and more about being “morally right" — as if this is a zero-sum game in which the two can be weighed against one another. She’s practically saying, “Well, maybe I was wrong, but at least my cause is just.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-very-bad-defense-her-falsehoods/?utm_term=.620d814d33d3 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/alexandri...
    - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
      >> How long until the same thing happens in academia and STEM is attacked for caring more about facts than being "morally right" according to someone's personal definition of morality? Perhaps journalists have "facts", but, in the sciences, we don't have anything of the sort. We have evidence, and theories that attempt to interpret the evidence. Scientists are often accused of equivocating about the significance of their results, and changing their minds every few years, because the public expects "facts" and absolute scientific truth where all we have is best-guesses given the data, and uncertainty. And this is an expectation bred by the reporting of scientific results in the lay press. The comment you quote above seems to be about WP fact-checkers; not scientists. I don't see why you have to go from that, to a crisis in scientific credibility. Journalists can be expected to have much less rigorous research processes than scientists. In that light, the comment you quote, that being morally right is more important than being factually correct makes sense: journalistic "fact-checking" is not going to be very accurate at all. So why not make sure it's at least ethical? In any case, I don't see any, well, evidence of the kind of crisis you're talking about.

PinkMilkshake 8y ago

> gross mischaracterization of these philosophical bents Could you please explain? I don't think I misrepresented anything, but I'm open to correction. I'm no expert either, but I have explored these ideas and I feel like I gave fair summary. > but it's not the whole truth True, it was a summary of what I felt were the relevant points. > misinformation I don't think what I said is even particularly controversial, least of all misinformation. It's just not well known. Most of what I said is explicitly stated by the people who hold those beliefs.

torstenvl 8y ago

Explain, then, the epistemology that leads someone with a degree in international relations and economics to say that being morally right is more important than being factually correct? I agree that misinformation can be wielded like a club; I disagree that GP is the one doing so.

greesil 8y ago
Isn't that a false dichotomy?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jackvalentine 8y ago
If you're going to throw quotes or references to news in to conversations out of nowhere at least source them. For those playing at home: he's quoting stripped of context Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Watch the video here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/06/ocasio-cortez_people_being_more_concerned_about_me_being_factually_correct_than_morally_right.html?jwsource=cl http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/06/ocasio-cor...
- leereeves 8y ago
  What about that context contradicts torstenvl's interpretation? It seems to me that saying that Washington Post fact-checkers are "more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right" is one step away from saying they are morally wrong, an example of the "post-fact" attitude that holding the right position is more important than reality. I suppose it was inevitable that when fact-checkers became inconvenient for politicians, politicians would attack them. How long until the same thing happens in academia and STEM is attacked for caring more about facts than being "morally right" according to someone's personal definition of morality? People who still care about facts need to stand up to those who don't, lest facts cease to matter entirely. Edit: In response to the claim that the WaPo is being "pedantic" and "petty", I should include their response: > The first problem here is that Ocasio-Cortez is really minimizing her falsehoods. Four Pinocchios is not a claim that Glenn Kessler and The Post’s Fact Checker team give out for bungling the “semantics” of something. It’s when something is a blatant falsehood. It’s the worst rating you can get for a singular claim. ... > What might be most problematic about Ocasio-Cortez’s defense, though, is the idea that people should care less about specific facts and more about being “morally right" — as if this is a zero-sum game in which the two can be weighed against one another. She’s practically saying, “Well, maybe I was wrong, but at least my cause is just.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-very-bad-defense-her-falsehoods/?utm_term=.620d814d33d3 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/alexandri...
  - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
    >> How long until the same thing happens in academia and STEM is attacked for caring more about facts than being "morally right" according to someone's personal definition of morality? Perhaps journalists have "facts", but, in the sciences, we don't have anything of the sort. We have evidence, and theories that attempt to interpret the evidence. Scientists are often accused of equivocating about the significance of their results, and changing their minds every few years, because the public expects "facts" and absolute scientific truth where all we have is best-guesses given the data, and uncertainty. And this is an expectation bred by the reporting of scientific results in the lay press. The comment you quote above seems to be about WP fact-checkers; not scientists. I don't see why you have to go from that, to a crisis in scientific credibility. Journalists can be expected to have much less rigorous research processes than scientists. In that light, the comment you quote, that being morally right is more important than being factually correct makes sense: journalistic "fact-checking" is not going to be very accurate at all. So why not make sure it's at least ethical? In any case, I don't see any, well, evidence of the kind of crisis you're talking about.