4 ms·

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm not going to read the article. This long-form stuff is particularly sticky. If the story is told well, you're likely going

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm not going to read the article. This long-form stuff is particularly sticky. If the story is told well, you're likely going to remember it as true (or at least credible) even the story wasn't credible in the first place.

dehrmann 6y ago
I recently read the Atlantic piece about semi-rich kids getting world-class coaches of prep school sports (crew, lacrosse, etc.) so they might be able to get on the team at elite colleges. Oops. At least it sounded like the general gist of the story was accurate.
baryphonic 6y ago
The truth of a story does not depend on the credibility of its narrator. To assert otherwise is the definition of ad hominem. Claims asserted may nonetheless be untrue or may not be as strong as claimed. But that requires careful, critical examination. I'm perplexed by this reaction, as if reading something with a critical eye is impossible. Or, worse, that reading something by someone without a particular status or pedigree might become as infectious as SARS-2 itself and turn us into zombies or something.
- anon9001 6y ago
  > The truth of a story does not depend on the credibility of its narrator. It actually does. I'm going to respect the opinions of serious scientists, doctors, journalists, lawyers, etc on topics of their expertise. > But that requires careful, critical examination. That was my whole point. By stating claims as an elaborate story that requires time investment as a reader, with a lot of flourish from a professional writer, you're undermining careful and critical examination. You're also risking the story being memorable and sticking with you, in the same way that people watch historical movies and then internalize that as what actually happened. Even though you know most movies are fictional, if it's the reference you feel an emotional attachment to, you'll justify it as true to yourself. Humans aren't good at purging information once they've been exposed to it, especially if it resonates with them. > I'm perplexed by this reaction, as if reading something with a critical eye is impossible. It's not impossible, it's just impractical. If I read something by a well-respected person with expertise, then the point of reading is to retain as much shared knowledge as possible. If I read pieces like this, then I get to live in their narrative for a little while, but I have to be careful not to absorb too much of it or take plausible sounding things as true, at least pending fact-checking. > Or, worse, that reading something by someone without a particular status or pedigree might become as infectious as SARS-2 itself and turn us into zombies or something. Indeed, that is what's happening. We used to value expertise. Now everyone's opinion is equally valid.
  - andromeduck 6y ago
    One who does not trust in public reason or accepts authority as a be-all end all as opposed to simply a fallible but time saving heuristic cannot claim to be a practitioner of science which is all about zero trust and verifiability, the two positions are fundamentally incompatible. In science every individual has a personal and moral duty to derive, reproduce or otherwise inquire of the world so as too bootstrap themselves including sometimes theories to which they find too obvious or implausible, and from sources too and notm for without regularly doing so because that is the single thing fundamentally sperating us from antivaxers and flat eathers besides some luck in initial authority.
  - baryphonic 6y ago
    > > The truth of a story does not depend on the credibility of its narrator. > > It actually does. I'm going to respect the opinions of serious scientists, doctors, journalists, lawyers, etc on topics of their expertise. No, this is just wrong. If a homeless person tells you that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, this is just as true as if a Stanford physics professor says it, despite the latter having much more credibility than the former. The truth of a statement is independent of the speaker. In fact, your causality is exactly backwards. Credibility depends (in part) on someone stating the truth repeatedly.
- arrrg 6y ago
  Abstractly speaking you are right, of course. However, how could you even begin to fairly judge the author’s argument if you yourself aren’t knowledgeable about the topic at hand? If you aren’t an expert looking at the author’s credentials and making an inference from there is totally fair since you will never be able to even begin to appreciate that argument. Which to me means in this case: I want to hear from virologists or epidemiologists or similar people about this topic and no one else. Maybe an article that heavily relies on quotes and interviews with such people would be fine, too.

dehrmann 6y ago

I recently read the Atlantic piece about semi-rich kids getting world-class coaches of prep school sports (crew, lacrosse, etc.) so they might be able to get on the team at elite colleges. Oops. At least it sounded like the general gist of the story was accurate.

baryphonic 6y ago

The truth of a story does not depend on the credibility of its narrator. To assert otherwise is the definition of ad hominem. Claims asserted may nonetheless be untrue or may not be as strong as claimed. But that requires careful, critical examination. I'm perplexed by this reaction, as if reading something with a critical eye is impossible. Or, worse, that reading something by someone without a particular status or pedigree might become as infectious as SARS-2 itself and turn us into zombies or something.

anon9001 6y ago
> The truth of a story does not depend on the credibility of its narrator. It actually does. I'm going to respect the opinions of serious scientists, doctors, journalists, lawyers, etc on topics of their expertise. > But that requires careful, critical examination. That was my whole point. By stating claims as an elaborate story that requires time investment as a reader, with a lot of flourish from a professional writer, you're undermining careful and critical examination. You're also risking the story being memorable and sticking with you, in the same way that people watch historical movies and then internalize that as what actually happened. Even though you know most movies are fictional, if it's the reference you feel an emotional attachment to, you'll justify it as true to yourself. Humans aren't good at purging information once they've been exposed to it, especially if it resonates with them. > I'm perplexed by this reaction, as if reading something with a critical eye is impossible. It's not impossible, it's just impractical. If I read something by a well-respected person with expertise, then the point of reading is to retain as much shared knowledge as possible. If I read pieces like this, then I get to live in their narrative for a little while, but I have to be careful not to absorb too much of it or take plausible sounding things as true, at least pending fact-checking. > Or, worse, that reading something by someone without a particular status or pedigree might become as infectious as SARS-2 itself and turn us into zombies or something. Indeed, that is what's happening. We used to value expertise. Now everyone's opinion is equally valid.
- andromeduck 6y ago
  One who does not trust in public reason or accepts authority as a be-all end all as opposed to simply a fallible but time saving heuristic cannot claim to be a practitioner of science which is all about zero trust and verifiability, the two positions are fundamentally incompatible. In science every individual has a personal and moral duty to derive, reproduce or otherwise inquire of the world so as too bootstrap themselves including sometimes theories to which they find too obvious or implausible, and from sources too and notm for without regularly doing so because that is the single thing fundamentally sperating us from antivaxers and flat eathers besides some luck in initial authority.
- baryphonic 6y ago
  > > The truth of a story does not depend on the credibility of its narrator. > > It actually does. I'm going to respect the opinions of serious scientists, doctors, journalists, lawyers, etc on topics of their expertise. No, this is just wrong. If a homeless person tells you that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, this is just as true as if a Stanford physics professor says it, despite the latter having much more credibility than the former. The truth of a statement is independent of the speaker. In fact, your causality is exactly backwards. Credibility depends (in part) on someone stating the truth repeatedly.
arrrg 6y ago
Abstractly speaking you are right, of course. However, how could you even begin to fairly judge the author’s argument if you yourself aren’t knowledgeable about the topic at hand? If you aren’t an expert looking at the author’s credentials and making an inference from there is totally fair since you will never be able to even begin to appreciate that argument. Which to me means in this case: I want to hear from virologists or epidemiologists or similar people about this topic and no one else. Maybe an article that heavily relies on quotes and interviews with such people would be fine, too.