4 ms·

'Balanced' is a red herring and useless in-and-of itself. Conversation should be a collaboration to find the truth, not a 'balanced' battle between two opponent

by glial 6y ago

'Balanced' is a red herring and useless in-and-of itself. Conversation should be a collaboration to find the truth, not a 'balanced' battle between two opponents. Bullshit on the internet doesn't further the goal of finding the truth or arriving at consensus.

mistermann 6y ago
One complication might be that "bullshit" and various other rhetorical techniques are often used to dismiss truths that one has no interest in pondering, and this may not always be a conscious and intentional action. Of course there are obvious problems with this as well ("it takes 10x as much energy to refute bullshit than it does to spew it, etc"), but I think there is value in acknowledging the possibility that all humans aren't nearly as good at discerning truth as they perceive. Most people seem to get agitated rather quickly even at a topic-agnostic abstract discussion about our ability to discern truth.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  Most of the bullshit that is circulating on the internet at the moment, for example as it relates to the pandemic say is balls to the wall craziness along the lines of bill gates inserting microchips in your brain or 5G infecting you with a virus, or you suffocating from wearing a mask. It's not like we're talking about any sophisticated philosophizing here, the real danger from misinformation on the internet at the moment is the lowest of lowbrow garbage spread at extremely high velocity at virtually no cost.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > Most of the bullshit... Bullshit according to who (which is my point)? > along the lines of bill gates inserting microchips in your brain or 5G infecting you with a virus, or you suffocating from wearing a mask There is some of this, yes. But then there are also questions regarding financial motives behind vaccines, and the unusual manner in which statistics are reported, and why certain portions of reality shall not be discussed, and so forth and so on. Lots of people assert that these ideas are also "bullshit", but if you ask for evidence substantiating that assertion, they often behave as if the notion that assertions should require evidence is absurd (while simultaneously criticizing conspiracy theorists for asserting things without evidence). > It's not like we're talking about any sophisticated philosophizing here I don't think philosophers would agree that epistemology is simple - that it often seems to invoke such strong emotions in people suggests that it is anything but. It has a dependency on human cognition, which is fairly well known to be a less than perfect platform in many ways. > the real danger from misinformation on the internet at the moment is the lowest of lowbrow garbage spread at extremely high velocity at virtually no cost. This is surely "a" danger, but whether it is "the" (main) danger is necessarily speculative, as it has a dependency on the future, which is unknown.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      >Bullshit according to who (which is my point)? Really anyone with five braincells. Can someone explain to me why Hackernews and much of the rest of the internet, has descended into this nihilistic relativism where acknowleding even basic, empirical reality has apparently become impossible? Viral diseases aren't spread through radiowaves. That's not a matter of opinion, that's a fact. Of course a significant portion of people might be so scientifically illiterate they cannot figure that out, that doesn't change the fact that it's not true. This constant childish "hey but how do you know that this is true buddy" talk around misinformation and information is really driving me nuts.
      - ColanR 6y ago
        > Really anyone with five braincells....a significant portion of people might be so scientifically illiterate they cannot figure that out Per the HN guidelines: "Don't be snarky...Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." > Viral diseases aren't spread through radiowaves. You're clearly not responding to the parent, since they weren't defending that. It would be more interesting if you responded to the not-so-strawman position they actually represented. > This constant childish "hey but how do you know that this is true buddy" talk around misinformation and information is really driving me nuts. It drives me nuts, too, when people refuse to consider alternative perspectives because the source seems tainted.
      - mistermann 6y ago
        > Can someone explain to me why Hackernews and much of the rest of the internet, has descended into this nihilistic relativism where acknowleding even basic, empirical reality has apparently become impossible? I do it because of the increasingly prevalence of authoritarianism over logic, that too many people seem to no longer be capable of someone disagreeing with them (while they disagree with someone else) without losing their cool. > Viral diseases aren't spread through radiowaves. That's not a matter of opinion, that's a fact. Of course a significant portion of people might be so scientifically illiterate they cannot figure that out, that doesn't change the fact that it's not true. I clearly acknowledged (in a separate comment from "Most of the bullshit...) the silly 5G --> covide theory, before proceeding to point out several far less silly ideas that are often considered bullshit. Yet, your comment seems to be written as if you did not notice the distinction I made. I am very curious what mechanism is behind this - was this a cool, calculated, deliberately rhetorical response, or was it more toward the instinctual end of the spectrum? Considering the increasing amount of hostility and polarization that can easily be observed everywhere on social media (or the riots in the streets, burning of buildings, smashing of cars, etc) these don't seem like a "nihilistically relativist" questions to me - the whole mess seems like a pretty big deal. You are welcome to disagree of course, but in doing so I'd prefer if you don't declare reality to be a certain way without providing evidence. > This constant childish "hey but how do you know that this is true buddy" talk around misinformation and information is really driving me nuts. This is kind of my point: "...but if you ask for evidence substantiating that assertion, they often behave as if the notion that assertions should require evidence is absurd". If someone disagreeing with your opinion invokes a feeling that they are "childish", and "drives you nuts", perhaps the problem isn't entirely with the other person.
  - clairity 6y ago
    yah, it's total bullshit that masks are thrown around as knight in shining armor akin to the second coming, when we all know they have limited utility for most situations outside of hospitals and care facilities, while the mundane but effective solution of distancing is ignored because it's not conspicuous enough and politicized enough for various factions to wield for their own aims.
  - syshum 6y ago
    >> or you suffocating from wearing a mask. This is an example of the problem. There are legimate legal, constitutional, and philosophical concerns about government mandated mask wearing The problem is anytime anyone wants to have a rational debate about those topics people simply want to dismiss the person as a "crazy person that wants to kill grandma and believes a make will suffocate you" For example I do not have a problem with a Individual business mandating a mask to shop or enter, but I absolutely believe the government should not (and does not under a textual reading of the US Constitution) have the legal authority to mandate mask wearing or have the authority to issue a criminal penalty should one refuse to obey. I also do not believe the government has the constitutional authority to pick and choose what business is "essential" and then mandate all business that is not bestowed that title to be shuttered for 6+ months with no compensation by said government (that should be an unconstitutional taking) Saying these things in modern discourse means I want to kill people and that every COVID Death is my fault somehow simply because I believe government power should be limited even in an "emergency"
  - apostacy 6y ago
    > Most of the bullshit that is circulating on the internet at the moment, for example as it relates to the pandemic say is balls to the wall craziness along the lines of bill gates inserting microchips in your brain or 5G infecting you with a virus, or you suffocating from wearing a mask. This is an irrelevant straw-man that they trot out whenever anyone criticizes their censorship. I tried warning people about Coronavirus last December, and was banned for telling the truth. I know people who were in China and saw what was happening first hand. And there was a growing preponderance of video evidence, as well. Would you have laughed at me when I tried warning you to get a mask last February? Would you have flagged my comment as fake news? The truth is that corporations like Facebook and Google are not infallible, and we should not outsource truth to them. Not just are they capable of being wrong by accident, but they also have an agenda, like everyone else. Last January, the "truth" was that COVID 19 didn't exist. Last March, the "truth" was that it was totally not contagious and that anyone talking about it was racist. We should be blaming the pandemic on social media companies that suppressed people trying to report on it.
- glial 6y ago
  Yes, the last sentence in my comment was unnecessarily provocative and I should have left it out because it distracts from my larger point, about which I think we agree. Humans are not good at discerning truth on their own, and we need social institutions that help us collaborate to find it, rather than turn the endeavor into a spectacle.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    I can get on board with us needing help to learn how to discern fact from fiction, but considering the amount of people with post-secondary education who seem utterly helpless I don't feel like the universities are the place to turn, I certainly don't trust the government to come up with a trustworthy system (I'm suspicious if such a thing is aligned with their true interests), so I'm not sure how we find our way out of the corner we've painted ourselves into. And ever present in the background is China, who due to strict control of speech seem to have very few problems like us. Evolution being amoral, I'm a bit worried that their restrictive approach might end up being selected for fitness.
apostacy 6y ago
Telling people to buy a mask last February was dangerous misinformation that threatened to cause a panic. Facebook expat groups in China were trying to get the word out, and were deleted with extreme prejudice. Obviously, they were right, and Facebook was wrong. Stuff that was labeled as fake news bullshit was actually the truth. After all of this, how can you ever trust these companies to decide for you what the truth is? How can you ever trust Facebook again?
raxxorrax 6y ago
Declaring "bullshit on the internet" to be an existential danger is bullshit. We would all be dead already.
- glial 6y ago
  That’s not what I said.

by glial 6y ago

mistermann 6y ago

One complication might be that "bullshit" and various other rhetorical techniques are often used to dismiss truths that one has no interest in pondering, and this may not always be a conscious and intentional action. Of course there are obvious problems with this as well ("it takes 10x as much energy to refute bullshit than it does to spew it, etc"), but I think there is value in acknowledging the possibility that all humans aren't nearly as good at discerning truth as they perceive. Most people seem to get agitated rather quickly even at a topic-agnostic abstract discussion about our ability to discern truth.

Barrin92 6y ago
Most of the bullshit that is circulating on the internet at the moment, for example as it relates to the pandemic say is balls to the wall craziness along the lines of bill gates inserting microchips in your brain or 5G infecting you with a virus, or you suffocating from wearing a mask. It's not like we're talking about any sophisticated philosophizing here, the real danger from misinformation on the internet at the moment is the lowest of lowbrow garbage spread at extremely high velocity at virtually no cost.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > Most of the bullshit... Bullshit according to who (which is my point)? > along the lines of bill gates inserting microchips in your brain or 5G infecting you with a virus, or you suffocating from wearing a mask There is some of this, yes. But then there are also questions regarding financial motives behind vaccines, and the unusual manner in which statistics are reported, and why certain portions of reality shall not be discussed, and so forth and so on. Lots of people assert that these ideas are also "bullshit", but if you ask for evidence substantiating that assertion, they often behave as if the notion that assertions should require evidence is absurd (while simultaneously criticizing conspiracy theorists for asserting things without evidence). > It's not like we're talking about any sophisticated philosophizing here I don't think philosophers would agree that epistemology is simple - that it often seems to invoke such strong emotions in people suggests that it is anything but. It has a dependency on human cognition, which is fairly well known to be a less than perfect platform in many ways. > the real danger from misinformation on the internet at the moment is the lowest of lowbrow garbage spread at extremely high velocity at virtually no cost. This is surely "a" danger, but whether it is "the" (main) danger is necessarily speculative, as it has a dependency on the future, which is unknown.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    >Bullshit according to who (which is my point)? Really anyone with five braincells. Can someone explain to me why Hackernews and much of the rest of the internet, has descended into this nihilistic relativism where acknowleding even basic, empirical reality has apparently become impossible? Viral diseases aren't spread through radiowaves. That's not a matter of opinion, that's a fact. Of course a significant portion of people might be so scientifically illiterate they cannot figure that out, that doesn't change the fact that it's not true. This constant childish "hey but how do you know that this is true buddy" talk around misinformation and information is really driving me nuts.
    - ColanR 6y ago
      > Really anyone with five braincells....a significant portion of people might be so scientifically illiterate they cannot figure that out Per the HN guidelines: "Don't be snarky...Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." > Viral diseases aren't spread through radiowaves. You're clearly not responding to the parent, since they weren't defending that. It would be more interesting if you responded to the not-so-strawman position they actually represented. > This constant childish "hey but how do you know that this is true buddy" talk around misinformation and information is really driving me nuts. It drives me nuts, too, when people refuse to consider alternative perspectives because the source seems tainted.
    - mistermann 6y ago
      > Can someone explain to me why Hackernews and much of the rest of the internet, has descended into this nihilistic relativism where acknowleding even basic, empirical reality has apparently become impossible? I do it because of the increasingly prevalence of authoritarianism over logic, that too many people seem to no longer be capable of someone disagreeing with them (while they disagree with someone else) without losing their cool. > Viral diseases aren't spread through radiowaves. That's not a matter of opinion, that's a fact. Of course a significant portion of people might be so scientifically illiterate they cannot figure that out, that doesn't change the fact that it's not true. I clearly acknowledged (in a separate comment from "Most of the bullshit...) the silly 5G --> covide theory, before proceeding to point out several far less silly ideas that are often considered bullshit. Yet, your comment seems to be written as if you did not notice the distinction I made. I am very curious what mechanism is behind this - was this a cool, calculated, deliberately rhetorical response, or was it more toward the instinctual end of the spectrum? Considering the increasing amount of hostility and polarization that can easily be observed everywhere on social media (or the riots in the streets, burning of buildings, smashing of cars, etc) these don't seem like a "nihilistically relativist" questions to me - the whole mess seems like a pretty big deal. You are welcome to disagree of course, but in doing so I'd prefer if you don't declare reality to be a certain way without providing evidence. > This constant childish "hey but how do you know that this is true buddy" talk around misinformation and information is really driving me nuts. This is kind of my point: "...but if you ask for evidence substantiating that assertion, they often behave as if the notion that assertions should require evidence is absurd". If someone disagreeing with your opinion invokes a feeling that they are "childish", and "drives you nuts", perhaps the problem isn't entirely with the other person.
- clairity 6y ago
  yah, it's total bullshit that masks are thrown around as knight in shining armor akin to the second coming, when we all know they have limited utility for most situations outside of hospitals and care facilities, while the mundane but effective solution of distancing is ignored because it's not conspicuous enough and politicized enough for various factions to wield for their own aims.
- syshum 6y ago
  >> or you suffocating from wearing a mask. This is an example of the problem. There are legimate legal, constitutional, and philosophical concerns about government mandated mask wearing The problem is anytime anyone wants to have a rational debate about those topics people simply want to dismiss the person as a "crazy person that wants to kill grandma and believes a make will suffocate you" For example I do not have a problem with a Individual business mandating a mask to shop or enter, but I absolutely believe the government should not (and does not under a textual reading of the US Constitution) have the legal authority to mandate mask wearing or have the authority to issue a criminal penalty should one refuse to obey. I also do not believe the government has the constitutional authority to pick and choose what business is "essential" and then mandate all business that is not bestowed that title to be shuttered for 6+ months with no compensation by said government (that should be an unconstitutional taking) Saying these things in modern discourse means I want to kill people and that every COVID Death is my fault somehow simply because I believe government power should be limited even in an "emergency"
- apostacy 6y ago
  > Most of the bullshit that is circulating on the internet at the moment, for example as it relates to the pandemic say is balls to the wall craziness along the lines of bill gates inserting microchips in your brain or 5G infecting you with a virus, or you suffocating from wearing a mask. This is an irrelevant straw-man that they trot out whenever anyone criticizes their censorship. I tried warning people about Coronavirus last December, and was banned for telling the truth. I know people who were in China and saw what was happening first hand. And there was a growing preponderance of video evidence, as well. Would you have laughed at me when I tried warning you to get a mask last February? Would you have flagged my comment as fake news? The truth is that corporations like Facebook and Google are not infallible, and we should not outsource truth to them. Not just are they capable of being wrong by accident, but they also have an agenda, like everyone else. Last January, the "truth" was that COVID 19 didn't exist. Last March, the "truth" was that it was totally not contagious and that anyone talking about it was racist. We should be blaming the pandemic on social media companies that suppressed people trying to report on it.
glial 6y ago
Yes, the last sentence in my comment was unnecessarily provocative and I should have left it out because it distracts from my larger point, about which I think we agree. Humans are not good at discerning truth on their own, and we need social institutions that help us collaborate to find it, rather than turn the endeavor into a spectacle.
- mistermann 6y ago
  I can get on board with us needing help to learn how to discern fact from fiction, but considering the amount of people with post-secondary education who seem utterly helpless I don't feel like the universities are the place to turn, I certainly don't trust the government to come up with a trustworthy system (I'm suspicious if such a thing is aligned with their true interests), so I'm not sure how we find our way out of the corner we've painted ourselves into. And ever present in the background is China, who due to strict control of speech seem to have very few problems like us. Evolution being amoral, I'm a bit worried that their restrictive approach might end up being selected for fitness.

apostacy 6y ago

Telling people to buy a mask last February was dangerous misinformation that threatened to cause a panic. Facebook expat groups in China were trying to get the word out, and were deleted with extreme prejudice. Obviously, they were right, and Facebook was wrong. Stuff that was labeled as fake news bullshit was actually the truth. After all of this, how can you ever trust these companies to decide for you what the truth is? How can you ever trust Facebook again?

raxxorrax 6y ago

Declaring "bullshit on the internet" to be an existential danger is bullshit. We would all be dead already.

glial 6y ago
That’s not what I said.