4 ms·

This is an excuse to be lazy and not try to establish truth at all, which is way worse than getting the 'truth' wrong sometimes.

marcus_holmes 6y ago
I think this is the core political question of our age, myself.
- garrickvanburen 6y ago
  The world is multi-faceted. Situations and individuals are complex. Externalities and exceptions abound. Multiple perspectives can accurately describe the same event - e.g. the fable about the blind me all describing an elephant. Each of their individual descriptions is true. There is also a larger truth that none of them are aware of. That doesn’t make them liars either individually or a group. Additionally, it can be highly politically advantageous to frame, spin, or otherwise mischaracterize, on the thinnest evidence, both out of bad faith and naïveté. So, about Truth with a capital ‘T’, I’d like to paraphrase PK Dick’s statement, “truth is what exists when you stop believing.”
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    I totally agree, but it's not much use when trying to counter an anti-vaxxer spreading misinformation via Facebook
- petrocrat 6y ago
  I tend to agree with you there. I am starting to think that ultimately, though, the answer is one that no one particularly wants to admit because it boils down to two unpalatable options, one distributed and unregulated; the other centralized and regulated. 1) Unregulated: No one is the arbiter of truth, in which case a haphazard group of marketers, propagandists and psyops peddlers reign supreme. This eventually/inevitably consolidates into an organized propaganda outlet. 2) Regulated: A group is selected based on some credential or merit and you end up with essentially a Technocracy. More or less what the "Elites" boogeyman is. If the Technocracy is staffed by scientists and engineers, then it might be the best possibility available. But this also eventually consolidates and leads to an erosion of the eligibility credentials and then non-expert people will gain positions within it for ulterior motives. If the technocratic group is limited in scope of what "truths" it can decide on, then that is potentially a reasonable compromise.
  - cutemonster 6y ago
    3) A group with weapons has the power, and if what you say make them stronger you are speaking the truth. How some of the largest countries already work

marcus_holmes 6y ago

I think this is the core political question of our age, myself.

garrickvanburen 6y ago
The world is multi-faceted. Situations and individuals are complex. Externalities and exceptions abound. Multiple perspectives can accurately describe the same event - e.g. the fable about the blind me all describing an elephant. Each of their individual descriptions is true. There is also a larger truth that none of them are aware of. That doesn’t make them liars either individually or a group. Additionally, it can be highly politically advantageous to frame, spin, or otherwise mischaracterize, on the thinnest evidence, both out of bad faith and naïveté. So, about Truth with a capital ‘T’, I’d like to paraphrase PK Dick’s statement, “truth is what exists when you stop believing.”
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  I totally agree, but it's not much use when trying to counter an anti-vaxxer spreading misinformation via Facebook
petrocrat 6y ago
I tend to agree with you there. I am starting to think that ultimately, though, the answer is one that no one particularly wants to admit because it boils down to two unpalatable options, one distributed and unregulated; the other centralized and regulated. 1) Unregulated: No one is the arbiter of truth, in which case a haphazard group of marketers, propagandists and psyops peddlers reign supreme. This eventually/inevitably consolidates into an organized propaganda outlet. 2) Regulated: A group is selected based on some credential or merit and you end up with essentially a Technocracy. More or less what the "Elites" boogeyman is. If the Technocracy is staffed by scientists and engineers, then it might be the best possibility available. But this also eventually consolidates and leads to an erosion of the eligibility credentials and then non-expert people will gain positions within it for ulterior motives. If the technocratic group is limited in scope of what "truths" it can decide on, then that is potentially a reasonable compromise.
- cutemonster 6y ago
  3) A group with weapons has the power, and if what you say make them stronger you are speaking the truth. How some of the largest countries already work