3 ms·

I think if there wasn't a media blackout on any unapproved theories about the virus, the media and the approved experts would be somewhat more trusted.

• adrianN 6y ago
  There is no media blackout. The media is simply reporting what is the general consensus among professionals. Mainstream news is not a good avenue for discussing theories supported by a single paper or two.
  • mistermann 6y ago
    > There is no media blackout. If there was an effective media blackout on something, how would you know? > The media is simply reporting what is the general consensus among professionals. It is true that the media reports "general consensus among professionals", but is it perfectly true that this is what they are "simply" (just, only) doing? Human cognition has several flaws like this - it seems to very much behave in real time (when reckoning at the object level) like it considers itself to be omniscient, so falls victim to many things like "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"[1]. This is just one example of many that can be regularly observed in media and forum conversations, even on HN (whose participants are human beings let's not forget). I think if we were to spend more time considering world events from a more abstract, "zoomed out" perspective, perhaps we could break out of this never ending loop. So, instead of arguing about whether <IssueX> or <PersonA> "is" right or wrong, try to understand why people are forming the beliefs they hold, which then introduces a whole bunch of complexity into what appears to be (because of the nature of human cognition) a very simple situation. If we were also to document these learnings and add to and refine the list over time, I propose that a much clearer picture of just what the fuck is going on here would emerge. But instead, we repeat this simplistic process of "News event --> shallow analysis from biased perspectives --> form hasty conclusion that reinforces preexisting beliefs --> End" over and over, and we don't seem to realize we are doing this, because we are always reckoning about things at the object level. If you look closely, it's not too hard to see that this is quite similar (but not identical) to the approach the media takes to presenting the news as well, intentionally or not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
  • ColanR 6y ago
    > general consensus among professionals Who told you that? Have you talked to a spectrum of professionals yourself, in an environment where they aren't afraid of social repercussions for speaking against the 'approved' party line? Or did you get that from the media? Personally, I read the journal publications and see what experts have to say - and not just the experts trotted out by the media.
    • adrianN 6y ago
      And in which reputable journals do you find experts who are not afraid of social repercussions?