5 ms·

The naïveté here is assuming the people responsible for all this, don't know it. Let me give you an example that's closer to home: you know how Facebook hires

The naïveté here is assuming the people responsible for all this, don't know it. Let me give you an example that's closer to home: you know how Facebook hires a bunch of people and pays them to collect more and more and more data on everyone? Do you think a single person within Facebook doesn't know it? They all know it and they all like their paycheque more than they like having a conscience. They buried that conscience long ago, in the name of 'providing for my family' or some other straw-man. Some never had much of a conscience to begin with. That's most people, most of the time. They want what they want for them first, everybody else is everybody else's problem. It's really that simple. There are many ways this attitude is being enabled but really, being a selfish monkey comes natural to most people, it's overcoming that selfishness in the name of something bigger that takes a great deal of work. If that work goes unappreciated, what you get is a fake democracy or a real tyranny - all other options require citizens that aren't infantile, self-centered brats. The way to see this most clearly is to ask 1000 educated, not random people, what critical theory [0] is. Maybe one will be familiar with it? We've had people thinking about the problem you're describing for nearly 100 years and hardly anyone knows about it. Now why would that be? Critical theory and philosophy more broadly has something to say about it :) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

noch 6y ago
> The way to see this most clearly is to ask 1000 educated, not random people, what critical theory [0] is. Maybe one will be familiar with it? We've had people thinking about the problem you're describing for nearly 100 years and hardly anyone knows about it. Now why would that be? Critical theory and philosophy more broadly has something to say about it : If you have a social problem, then you employ postmodernism in the form of critical theory, then you now have two problems. Critical theory does not employ the scientific method and therefore does not provide a reliable means for falsifying claims. We should dismiss the entire field and only retain the parts of it, if any, that can be subjected to rigorous hypothesis testing. A theory is usually attended by a reproducible proof. As a "theory" what is the proof of "critical theory"? No. Postmodernism got us into this mess. Consider, for instance, the ascendancy and prevalence of "Grievance Studies", grounded, as it is, in critical theory: https://medium.com/@heyingh/grievance-studies-goes-after-the-scientific-method-63b6cfd9c913 https://medium.com/@heyingh/grievance-studies-goes-after-the...
- alexashka 6y ago
  Scientific method is employed to solve particular problems. Which problems should we be solving? You cannot use the scientific method to answer that question. The best you can try and do is use empirical evidence and science to strengthen your position, in an attempt to convince others and/or yourself. This is not an original thought - it's a shame that it isn't more well known.
  - noch 6y ago
    > Which problems should we be solving? You cannot use the scientific method to answer that question. The best you can try and do is use empirical evidence and science to strengthen your position, in an attempt to convince others and/or yourself. Demonstrably false. This belief is poisonous and should be avoided in all cases. (ask yourself how you decide whether to fix your plumbing or to buy a new couch, for instance, on a limited budget.) We evaluate the problems that we should be solving through a cost-benefit analysis. We can estimate the expected value of various options on a decision tree and estimate the cost of various problems to society. We can ask constituents to estimate the dollar value of the harm they face from the continued existence of various problems. We can also ask them to estimate how much they would be willing to pay from their income, to solve a given problem. This gives a subjective estimate based on individual preferences. We can include weighted objective measures whenever possible. The explanatory power of various models can be tested and argued for/against in rational good-faith debate. For any equally favoured models that suggest a particular allocation of resources, we can perform competing tests e.g. a county can adopt one policy for a given time, while another county adopts a different policy. After the testing duration, outcomes are evaluated and the best policy adopted by all. Where there is an inability to evaluate models comprehensively and it is still difficult to form conclusions as to what problems should be addressed, we can ask interested/affected parties to take part in a prediction market, in which they can place bets on likely outcomes of various policies. We adopt the policy and solve the problem for which the majority of bets indicate a high probability of success. The winners of these bets keep their winnings. This is a rudimentary form of how the scientific method is applied to social problems. This kind of analysis is the most rational and effective tool when running one's own life, household, company, university, government, planet. > The best you can try and do is use empirical evidence and science to strengthen your position, in an attempt to convince others and/or yourself. 1000 x NO! Please do not ingest such a poisonous idea. We use the data we observe to determine the beliefs we should hold; we do not use beliefs we hold to tell us what data to observe.

noch 6y ago

> The way to see this most clearly is to ask 1000 educated, not random people, what critical theory [0] is. Maybe one will be familiar with it? We've had people thinking about the problem you're describing for nearly 100 years and hardly anyone knows about it. Now why would that be? Critical theory and philosophy more broadly has something to say about it : If you have a social problem, then you employ postmodernism in the form of critical theory, then you now have two problems. Critical theory does not employ the scientific method and therefore does not provide a reliable means for falsifying claims. We should dismiss the entire field and only retain the parts of it, if any, that can be subjected to rigorous hypothesis testing. A theory is usually attended by a reproducible proof. As a "theory" what is the proof of "critical theory"? No. Postmodernism got us into this mess. Consider, for instance, the ascendancy and prevalence of "Grievance Studies", grounded, as it is, in critical theory: https://medium.com/@heyingh/grievance-studies-goes-after-the-scientific-method-63b6cfd9c913 https://medium.com/@heyingh/grievance-studies-goes-after-the...

alexashka 6y ago
Scientific method is employed to solve particular problems. Which problems should we be solving? You cannot use the scientific method to answer that question. The best you can try and do is use empirical evidence and science to strengthen your position, in an attempt to convince others and/or yourself. This is not an original thought - it's a shame that it isn't more well known.
- noch 6y ago
  > Which problems should we be solving? You cannot use the scientific method to answer that question. The best you can try and do is use empirical evidence and science to strengthen your position, in an attempt to convince others and/or yourself. Demonstrably false. This belief is poisonous and should be avoided in all cases. (ask yourself how you decide whether to fix your plumbing or to buy a new couch, for instance, on a limited budget.) We evaluate the problems that we should be solving through a cost-benefit analysis. We can estimate the expected value of various options on a decision tree and estimate the cost of various problems to society. We can ask constituents to estimate the dollar value of the harm they face from the continued existence of various problems. We can also ask them to estimate how much they would be willing to pay from their income, to solve a given problem. This gives a subjective estimate based on individual preferences. We can include weighted objective measures whenever possible. The explanatory power of various models can be tested and argued for/against in rational good-faith debate. For any equally favoured models that suggest a particular allocation of resources, we can perform competing tests e.g. a county can adopt one policy for a given time, while another county adopts a different policy. After the testing duration, outcomes are evaluated and the best policy adopted by all. Where there is an inability to evaluate models comprehensively and it is still difficult to form conclusions as to what problems should be addressed, we can ask interested/affected parties to take part in a prediction market, in which they can place bets on likely outcomes of various policies. We adopt the policy and solve the problem for which the majority of bets indicate a high probability of success. The winners of these bets keep their winnings. This is a rudimentary form of how the scientific method is applied to social problems. This kind of analysis is the most rational and effective tool when running one's own life, household, company, university, government, planet. > The best you can try and do is use empirical evidence and science to strengthen your position, in an attempt to convince others and/or yourself. 1000 x NO! Please do not ingest such a poisonous idea. We use the data we observe to determine the beliefs we should hold; we do not use beliefs we hold to tell us what data to observe.