5 ms·

> It warns that those in power now use the shield of "free speech" to push propaganda and lies in order to undermine truth and democracy and thereby attempt to

> It warns that those in power now use the shield of "free speech" to push propaganda and lies in order to undermine truth and democracy and thereby attempt to preserve power. Except with new media no one can really push information, it is mostly up to the recommendation algorithms to propagate the messages, which is optimized for creating more engagement and ad dollars. This, singlehandedly damages more of democratic processes, which depend on healthy discourse, than any questionable content put into it. > now use the shield of "free speech" to push propaganda and lies in order to undermine truth Is there a form of free speech, contents of which you disagree that doesn’t push propaganda or undermine some definition of your truth? In other words, in this version of narrative warfare, every opponent narrative is already “propaganda”, every disagreement is “destroying democracy”. Except truth is hardly an out there objectivity to which propgandic words magically render our eyes blind. It is a process of dialectic; disagreements that can be integrated together and form a more comprehensive picture of our musings in an infinite problem space. It is the false sense of certainty, including utopian ideas of its attainability with likes of “fact checks” and judicious restriction of speech that destroy this process, and with it any hope of integrating opposing worldviews without wanting to hurt those who hold them.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
UncleOxidant 6y ago
> Except truth is hardly an out there objectivity Except truth by definition is objective. Opinions and beliefs are subjective. The earth is spherically shaped - this is not a subjective opinion, it is objective truth. > including utopian ideas of its attainability with likes of “fact checks” Aren't "fact checks" part of the free discussion? If a leader is spewing lots of falsehoods then it's up to the 4th estate to fact check him/her.
- acituan 6y ago
  > Except truth by definition is objective Except metaphysics of truth has been discussed for centuries and things are more complicated than that. Truth on matters most interesting to us is mostly transjective (neither objective nor subjective but depends on the interaction between the agent and the arena), because which truth you pursue is as important as what the thing is in itself, and the information we could seek about most things in themselves is inexhaustibly large. “Earth is spherically shaped” is not an “objective truth” if you are calculating the response time of your radio transmission of your satellite over a ground station up north, you need to get more precise than a “sphere”. > Aren't "fact checks" part of the free discussion? Certainly they are allowed, but they are posturing an institutional authority they don’t have. It is not a magical epistemology machine that you can put in bleeding edge scientific research in and it will spew “truth”s out. They are attempts to monopolize truth finding process, cheat the way out of dialectic with more institutions. There is no board or organization of “fact checkers”, no standards, no transparency. It is a branding gimmick.
  - msla 6y ago
    > “Earth is spherically shaped” is not an “objective truth” if you are calculating the response time of your radio transmission of your satellite over a ground station up north, you need to get more precise than a “sphere”. https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.ht... > The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal. > My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." "Truth is hard, let's go Postmodern!" isn't a valid conclusion. It's an escape hatch, a refusal to make a best effort and, when it's about something that matters, a horribly dangerous practice which essentially cedes the field to the idiots who have no such scruples. "VACCINES BAD! VACCINES AUTISM!" is idiocy, it's dangerous, and it must be countered, not implicitly allowed to pass because what is "Facts" anyway, man?
    - acituan 6y ago
      > "Truth is hard, let's go Postmodern!" isn't a valid conclusion. It's an escape hatch, a refusal to make a best effort and, when it's about something that matters, a horribly dangerous practice which essentially cedes the field to the idiots who have no such scruples. Postmodernism is not the only critique of Kant. Although you're fighting a strawman, I agree with your criticism of postmodernism as used today, but that is not what I was talking about. I am arguing indeed for making the best effort and especially about something that really matters. And it turns out "this is the objective truth" is one of the other escape hatches, especially since most of the questions that really matter are far more complex than the shape of our planet. Ethics, meaning, policy etc. they all require an ongoing process of being less wrong, which best works in opponent processing. There is rarely a terminal value for truth for these questions, there is always going to be an ongoing tension because the part of the reality we are trying to capture is inexhaustably complex. People who wrote the religious texts thought they were able to capture and codify the algorithm for "the right way", but we now see how inadequate they can be for our 21st century context. Anytime someone thought they had the key algorithm for utopia, they turned out to be the most evil machineries of our history sooner or later. > But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." I think that guy is the most wrong. Because "what are we going to use this information for, what adjacent information that we haven't yet might be interesting, are we framing the question right" is the most critical parts of the query that goes unasked. If we are talking about walking on the street, the flat earth guy is just as correct as the sphere guy. Notice I am not saying his epistemology is correct, nor he is entitled to his own opinion and we should be pluralistic. I am saying as long as both guys only walk on the street, the difference opinions are completely inconsequential. Now expand this to a question no one has a clear answer for. E.g. economic policy; some want it sphere, some want it flat. No doubt newspapers will be filled with people "it is flat, this is the objective truth". That is the use of going "hang on a second, we don't do objective truth here, we humbly pursue being less wrong, now dialogue with us, don't rhetorize your talking points, just honestly talk to us". Sadly, nowadays mass of the public discourse happens over channels that doesn't reward that but rhetoric and likes.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Except truth by definition is objective. Opinions and beliefs are subjective. The earth is spherically shaped - this is not a subjective opinion, it is objective truth. Except in politics we seldom care about such hard truths, but about which policy is best, what's better, what's moral, etc, which is subjective.
- LocalH 6y ago
  Existence itself is subjective. Reality itself is objective, but anything we touch has a hint of subjectivity present, inherent to our existence. The true falsehood is that there is an objective reality that we can perceive.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

UncleOxidant 6y ago

> Except truth is hardly an out there objectivity Except truth by definition is objective. Opinions and beliefs are subjective. The earth is spherically shaped - this is not a subjective opinion, it is objective truth. > including utopian ideas of its attainability with likes of “fact checks” Aren't "fact checks" part of the free discussion? If a leader is spewing lots of falsehoods then it's up to the 4th estate to fact check him/her.

acituan 6y ago
> Except truth by definition is objective Except metaphysics of truth has been discussed for centuries and things are more complicated than that. Truth on matters most interesting to us is mostly transjective (neither objective nor subjective but depends on the interaction between the agent and the arena), because which truth you pursue is as important as what the thing is in itself, and the information we could seek about most things in themselves is inexhaustibly large. “Earth is spherically shaped” is not an “objective truth” if you are calculating the response time of your radio transmission of your satellite over a ground station up north, you need to get more precise than a “sphere”. > Aren't "fact checks" part of the free discussion? Certainly they are allowed, but they are posturing an institutional authority they don’t have. It is not a magical epistemology machine that you can put in bleeding edge scientific research in and it will spew “truth”s out. They are attempts to monopolize truth finding process, cheat the way out of dialectic with more institutions. There is no board or organization of “fact checkers”, no standards, no transparency. It is a branding gimmick.
- msla 6y ago
  > “Earth is spherically shaped” is not an “objective truth” if you are calculating the response time of your radio transmission of your satellite over a ground station up north, you need to get more precise than a “sphere”. https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.ht... > The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal. > My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." "Truth is hard, let's go Postmodern!" isn't a valid conclusion. It's an escape hatch, a refusal to make a best effort and, when it's about something that matters, a horribly dangerous practice which essentially cedes the field to the idiots who have no such scruples. "VACCINES BAD! VACCINES AUTISM!" is idiocy, it's dangerous, and it must be countered, not implicitly allowed to pass because what is "Facts" anyway, man?
  - acituan 6y ago
    > "Truth is hard, let's go Postmodern!" isn't a valid conclusion. It's an escape hatch, a refusal to make a best effort and, when it's about something that matters, a horribly dangerous practice which essentially cedes the field to the idiots who have no such scruples. Postmodernism is not the only critique of Kant. Although you're fighting a strawman, I agree with your criticism of postmodernism as used today, but that is not what I was talking about. I am arguing indeed for making the best effort and especially about something that really matters. And it turns out "this is the objective truth" is one of the other escape hatches, especially since most of the questions that really matter are far more complex than the shape of our planet. Ethics, meaning, policy etc. they all require an ongoing process of being less wrong, which best works in opponent processing. There is rarely a terminal value for truth for these questions, there is always going to be an ongoing tension because the part of the reality we are trying to capture is inexhaustably complex. People who wrote the religious texts thought they were able to capture and codify the algorithm for "the right way", but we now see how inadequate they can be for our 21st century context. Anytime someone thought they had the key algorithm for utopia, they turned out to be the most evil machineries of our history sooner or later. > But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." I think that guy is the most wrong. Because "what are we going to use this information for, what adjacent information that we haven't yet might be interesting, are we framing the question right" is the most critical parts of the query that goes unasked. If we are talking about walking on the street, the flat earth guy is just as correct as the sphere guy. Notice I am not saying his epistemology is correct, nor he is entitled to his own opinion and we should be pluralistic. I am saying as long as both guys only walk on the street, the difference opinions are completely inconsequential. Now expand this to a question no one has a clear answer for. E.g. economic policy; some want it sphere, some want it flat. No doubt newspapers will be filled with people "it is flat, this is the objective truth". That is the use of going "hang on a second, we don't do objective truth here, we humbly pursue being less wrong, now dialogue with us, don't rhetorize your talking points, just honestly talk to us". Sadly, nowadays mass of the public discourse happens over channels that doesn't reward that but rhetoric and likes.
coldtea 6y ago
>Except truth by definition is objective. Opinions and beliefs are subjective. The earth is spherically shaped - this is not a subjective opinion, it is objective truth. Except in politics we seldom care about such hard truths, but about which policy is best, what's better, what's moral, etc, which is subjective.
LocalH 6y ago
Existence itself is subjective. Reality itself is objective, but anything we touch has a hint of subjectivity present, inherent to our existence. The true falsehood is that there is an objective reality that we can perceive.