6 ms·

Ideally, facts could assert themselves. Unfortunately, humans are needed to assert facts, and therefor any judgements based on facts require human interpretati

Ideally, facts could assert themselves. Unfortunately, humans are needed to assert facts, and therefor any judgements based on facts require human interpretation. We can dissolve interpretations down as far as we like to leave as little room for bias and dishonesty (and that is a useful effort), but ultimately there will always be POWER in the hands of those who we abdicate arbitration authority to. ...and power corrupts. The alternative is creating a diverse ecosystem of organizations/individuals who's analysis/logic people can choose to subscribe to and judge based on the reputation that they garner over time. ...and diversity of thought and analysis liberates.

pjc50 6y ago
> The alternative is creating a diverse ecosystem of organizations/individuals who's analysis/logic people can choose to subscribe to Allowing people to "choose" to subscribe to certain things has the ability to get them and others killed. That's why I mentioned the blood libel, while desperately casting around for something that people on HN wouldn't pointlessly dispute as subjective. The bar for "this is genuinely dangerous" should be very high, though! (the question of "what is a fact" could easily absorb a large part of an undergraduate History and Philosophy of Science degree, but we can all agree that there are certain things which are provably not facts?)
- indigochill 6y ago
  > the question of "what is a fact" could easily absorb a large part of an undergraduate History and Philosophy of Science degree Is it really that complicated? It seems like, at least if you subscribe to a certain definition of fact, it becomes straightforward. Example Fact: I observed that in a sample of X smokers who smoked Y cigarettes a day, Z developed lung cancer. Example non-Fact: Smoking causes approximately Z rate of lung cancer. The fact is about an observation that definitely indisputably happened. The non-fact is an extrapolation which is probably close to accurate given sufficiently good studies, but is nevertheless an extrapolation from facts rather than a fact itself. "Gravity is just a theory" and all that. By this definition of fact, there are actually relatively few facts of general interest. Most of what we're interested in are theories we derive from facts which is where interpretation comes in. There may have been other confounding factors in the study, but as far as the study results are concerned, those were definitely what was measured. However, my question is genuine. Is this a simplistic view of what a fact is, and if so, why?
  - ksdale 6y ago
    And then, assuming you can get people to agree on the accuracy of the observation and on the causation, people can still argue about the best course of action to address a problem. Assuming people don't agree on causation, you might never get enough trials of solutions to learn anything about what a best solution might look like.
    - xg15 6y ago
      Whether or not people agree on something is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a fact. Earth will orbit the sun, no matter how many people may or may not be comfortable with it. Finding out what is and what is not a fact can be extremely difficult. However, we've spent the last few centuries developing tools to tackle this problem in the for of the scientific method.
      - ksdale 6y ago
        The comment I was replying to pointed out that accurate observations are indisputable facts. To paraphrase the next part, determining causation from observations can be a matter of fact (where you understand the mechanism of causation very well), or of deciding that we're satisfied that the experimentation we've done demonstrates causation (which is not at all the same thing as proving causation). We can also do something like offer a plausible mechanism for causation, which, while often useful, is not particularly close to a fact in the vein of the Earth orbiting the sun. You're obviously correct that belief doesn't make something a fact, but what to do when a fact hinges on a study? Who decides if the study is good enough? Obviously there is an objective truth, but is the study enough to find it?
        xg15 6y ago
        > what to do when a fact hinges on a study? Who decides if the study is good enough? Obviously there is an objective truth, but is the study enough to find it? Good point. This is definitely not trivial or easy - but this exactly the problem that empirical science has been developing tools for. Technically, a theory cannot be "proven" - at some point, there could always appear another Einstein and overturn everything - but there are still theories which stay consistent with all observations - i.e. "facts" - for an extensively long time. The standard model of physics is such an example: It's not "proven", but for decades any attempt to disprove it has failed and an enormous amount of working technology has been developed by assuming the model accurately reflects reality. In a similar way, a single study is probably not enough to make a new theory credible - however if the claims of the theory can be consistently reproduced in additional studies, this gives more justification to rely on it. (And more justification to be sceptical of critics)
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  This is normally why we have limits on behavior like using violence to push viewpoints. You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into, but we also know that if you try to suppress them then they'll double down on their viewpoint. The best way to push a cause is to have a martyr. There is no person fit to play the censor. Power corrupts. What starts as an intent to stop climate change denialism ends with being false about warrantless surveillance. What starts with trying to limit hate speech frequently ends with picking favorites.
  - nazgulsenpai 6y ago
    This is extraordinarily well put.
  - xg15 6y ago
    OK, so... now what? You've correctly identified a number of practical problems with combatting misinformation. However, this does not change the fact that misinformation exists and does real harm. So if you can neither change a person's opinion, nor keep them from influencing others, what would you propose we do?
    - koheripbal 6y ago
      Teach logic. ...at a young age. Fundamental logic and reason. That is the first step. Most of the dangerous content online is visibly illogical, and driven purely on emotion.
      - xg15 6y ago
        Yes, and we're all susceptible to emotion to some degree, no matter the age and no matter the education. There has been extensive research done in public relations, advertising and consumer psychology how to manipulate people emotionally and make them act against reason. A bit of training in logical thinking is definitely not enough to counter this.
      - diegoholiveira 6y ago
        We're living in the age of emotions. Reason and logic are dead.
- tomjen3 6y ago
  Not allowing people to subscribe to facts can also get people killed. How many had to die pointlessly before the Germ theory?
- ColanR 6y ago
  > Allowing people to "choose" to subscribe to certain things has the ability to get them and others killed. I shouldn't be allowed to choose what I think?
- jacobr1 6y ago
  > can all agree that there are certain things which are provably not facts? In the abstract, sure, presuming your interlocutor shares a common enough epistemic framework, but good rhetoricians can craft slippery arguments. Instead of "anthropogenic climate change is bollocks and climatologists are all paid-off liars," how about "climate change models have been shown to have errors". The first statement itself is bollocks, but that latter is true (if also misleading). It is unlikely but possible the moon is made of cheese. Cheese is delicious on crackers. If astronauts ate moon-cheese, it would be delicious on crackers.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  Certainly not every Jew would appreciate it if you argue that people need to be shielded from their opinions for their own safety. > The bar for "this is genuinely dangerous" should be very high, though! That is very gracious of you.
thecureforzits 6y ago
If you step off the edge of a cliff, the fact of gravity will assert its existence on you whether you choose to subscribe to it or not.
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  But gravity is an explanation of what we know will happen. You can believe you will fall to your death without needing to believe in gravity. Classical mechanics is enough to model the situation accurately enough but also incorrect. We don’t have a unified model either. A lot of our facts in regard to explanations of observed phenomena are much more loose. Rather they are our best explanations. Don’t confuse the map for the terrain.
xg15 6y ago
So, how would you decide on an actual action in this system?
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Consensus. Which means promoting education and intelligence is critical to having a functioning government. ...and the first rule the consensus should pass is that experts in the field should provide the consensus within their domain area. ie. Climate Scientists should decide whether Climate Change is real (as a matter of policy) - not the general public.
  - xg15 6y ago
    > ...and the first rule the consensus should pass is... I mean you've just declared your own opinion to be the consensus. I too can design a system of governance that works via "have a spirited debate in which every opinion is valid, then do what I say" :)

pjc50 6y ago

> The alternative is creating a diverse ecosystem of organizations/individuals who's analysis/logic people can choose to subscribe to Allowing people to "choose" to subscribe to certain things has the ability to get them and others killed. That's why I mentioned the blood libel, while desperately casting around for something that people on HN wouldn't pointlessly dispute as subjective. The bar for "this is genuinely dangerous" should be very high, though! (the question of "what is a fact" could easily absorb a large part of an undergraduate History and Philosophy of Science degree, but we can all agree that there are certain things which are provably not facts?)

indigochill 6y ago
> the question of "what is a fact" could easily absorb a large part of an undergraduate History and Philosophy of Science degree Is it really that complicated? It seems like, at least if you subscribe to a certain definition of fact, it becomes straightforward. Example Fact: I observed that in a sample of X smokers who smoked Y cigarettes a day, Z developed lung cancer. Example non-Fact: Smoking causes approximately Z rate of lung cancer. The fact is about an observation that definitely indisputably happened. The non-fact is an extrapolation which is probably close to accurate given sufficiently good studies, but is nevertheless an extrapolation from facts rather than a fact itself. "Gravity is just a theory" and all that. By this definition of fact, there are actually relatively few facts of general interest. Most of what we're interested in are theories we derive from facts which is where interpretation comes in. There may have been other confounding factors in the study, but as far as the study results are concerned, those were definitely what was measured. However, my question is genuine. Is this a simplistic view of what a fact is, and if so, why?
- ksdale 6y ago
  And then, assuming you can get people to agree on the accuracy of the observation and on the causation, people can still argue about the best course of action to address a problem. Assuming people don't agree on causation, you might never get enough trials of solutions to learn anything about what a best solution might look like.
  - xg15 6y ago
    Whether or not people agree on something is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a fact. Earth will orbit the sun, no matter how many people may or may not be comfortable with it. Finding out what is and what is not a fact can be extremely difficult. However, we've spent the last few centuries developing tools to tackle this problem in the for of the scientific method.
    - ksdale 6y ago
      The comment I was replying to pointed out that accurate observations are indisputable facts. To paraphrase the next part, determining causation from observations can be a matter of fact (where you understand the mechanism of causation very well), or of deciding that we're satisfied that the experimentation we've done demonstrates causation (which is not at all the same thing as proving causation). We can also do something like offer a plausible mechanism for causation, which, while often useful, is not particularly close to a fact in the vein of the Earth orbiting the sun. You're obviously correct that belief doesn't make something a fact, but what to do when a fact hinges on a study? Who decides if the study is good enough? Obviously there is an objective truth, but is the study enough to find it?
      - xg15 6y ago
        > what to do when a fact hinges on a study? Who decides if the study is good enough? Obviously there is an objective truth, but is the study enough to find it? Good point. This is definitely not trivial or easy - but this exactly the problem that empirical science has been developing tools for. Technically, a theory cannot be "proven" - at some point, there could always appear another Einstein and overturn everything - but there are still theories which stay consistent with all observations - i.e. "facts" - for an extensively long time. The standard model of physics is such an example: It's not "proven", but for decades any attempt to disprove it has failed and an enormous amount of working technology has been developed by assuming the model accurately reflects reality. In a similar way, a single study is probably not enough to make a new theory credible - however if the claims of the theory can be consistently reproduced in additional studies, this gives more justification to rely on it. (And more justification to be sceptical of critics)
vorpalhex 6y ago
This is normally why we have limits on behavior like using violence to push viewpoints. You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into, but we also know that if you try to suppress them then they'll double down on their viewpoint. The best way to push a cause is to have a martyr. There is no person fit to play the censor. Power corrupts. What starts as an intent to stop climate change denialism ends with being false about warrantless surveillance. What starts with trying to limit hate speech frequently ends with picking favorites.
- nazgulsenpai 6y ago
  This is extraordinarily well put.
- xg15 6y ago
  OK, so... now what? You've correctly identified a number of practical problems with combatting misinformation. However, this does not change the fact that misinformation exists and does real harm. So if you can neither change a person's opinion, nor keep them from influencing others, what would you propose we do?
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    Teach logic. ...at a young age. Fundamental logic and reason. That is the first step. Most of the dangerous content online is visibly illogical, and driven purely on emotion.
    - xg15 6y ago
      Yes, and we're all susceptible to emotion to some degree, no matter the age and no matter the education. There has been extensive research done in public relations, advertising and consumer psychology how to manipulate people emotionally and make them act against reason. A bit of training in logical thinking is definitely not enough to counter this.
    - diegoholiveira 6y ago
      We're living in the age of emotions. Reason and logic are dead.
tomjen3 6y ago
Not allowing people to subscribe to facts can also get people killed. How many had to die pointlessly before the Germ theory?
ColanR 6y ago
> Allowing people to "choose" to subscribe to certain things has the ability to get them and others killed. I shouldn't be allowed to choose what I think?
jacobr1 6y ago
> can all agree that there are certain things which are provably not facts? In the abstract, sure, presuming your interlocutor shares a common enough epistemic framework, but good rhetoricians can craft slippery arguments. Instead of "anthropogenic climate change is bollocks and climatologists are all paid-off liars," how about "climate change models have been shown to have errors". The first statement itself is bollocks, but that latter is true (if also misleading). It is unlikely but possible the moon is made of cheese. Cheese is delicious on crackers. If astronauts ate moon-cheese, it would be delicious on crackers.
raxxorrax 6y ago
Certainly not every Jew would appreciate it if you argue that people need to be shielded from their opinions for their own safety. > The bar for "this is genuinely dangerous" should be very high, though! That is very gracious of you.

thecureforzits 6y ago

If you step off the edge of a cliff, the fact of gravity will assert its existence on you whether you choose to subscribe to it or not.

meheleventyone 6y ago
But gravity is an explanation of what we know will happen. You can believe you will fall to your death without needing to believe in gravity. Classical mechanics is enough to model the situation accurately enough but also incorrect. We don’t have a unified model either. A lot of our facts in regard to explanations of observed phenomena are much more loose. Rather they are our best explanations. Don’t confuse the map for the terrain.

xg15 6y ago

So, how would you decide on an actual action in this system?

koheripbal 6y ago
Consensus. Which means promoting education and intelligence is critical to having a functioning government. ...and the first rule the consensus should pass is that experts in the field should provide the consensus within their domain area. ie. Climate Scientists should decide whether Climate Change is real (as a matter of policy) - not the general public.
- xg15 6y ago
  > ...and the first rule the consensus should pass is... I mean you've just declared your own opinion to be the consensus. I too can design a system of governance that works via "have a spirited debate in which every opinion is valid, then do what I say" :)