5 ms·

It's not a person, it's philosophy, logic, science, etc.

by greatgirl 6y ago

stretchcat 6y ago
And the people who will be the impartial applicators of reason? Who will these judges of misinformation be?
nailer 6y ago
Who determines reason?
- greatgirl 6y ago
  Dialectics. Immanent critique. The method of isolating the contradictions of a system so as to arrive at the best possible answer. No one said there is a quick formula for this, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- proactivesvcs 6y ago
  No single person, group or authority. It is an ongoing determination by many people from a host of backgrounds, biases and intentions who still all agree on what is reasonable and what is not. It is determined by merely asking oneself "do I have doubt that is logical, fair and as unbiased as possible?". Gather enough of these people - from as wide a field as possible - and you have reason.
  - nailer 6y ago
    > it is an ongoing determination by many people from a host of backgrounds, biases and intentions who still all agree on what is reasonable and what is not. Where does this happen currently?
xenocratus 6y ago
This is implying there is always a Right™ answer or way to do something - especially when it comes to policy, for example, there's plenty of space for nuance that has no objective right or wrong. Life isn't math, regardless of how much our polarised world wants it to be so
- greatgirl 6y ago
  We have been attempting our best to come towards the most correct answers for everything, since forever. To suggest all of a sudden that this method is irrelevant is odd. It is to suggest that we should no longer pursue truth and instead lay everything on the table and say it's all correct and you should just pick whatever makes you feel the best.
  - xenocratus 6y ago
    We can't pursue Truth where there is no objective Truth to be pursued, we have to figure out what a good course of action is right now, without spending centuries to solve a problem that destroys society tomorrow. I wasn't really talking about free speech in particular, though it applies there as well. Is there a general consensus in philosophy on what The Truth About Free Speech is? Where the limits *need* to be? How to implement it in the context of large social media corporations? There isn't some grand set of values that everyone has to agree with, btw, unless you're willing to sacrifice everyone else's mental frameworks and perspectives (which might be a sacrifice you're willing to take, but I guess not everyone is so keen on :) )
- proactivesvcs 6y ago
  Your assertion falls apart when I ask you if there is a Right™ answer to "Is the Earth flat?". There are irrefutable answers to some questions. Others are backed up by a mountain of reproducaeble data, collected and re-checked over years, decades, by many people who go out of their way to disprove their own hypothesis and wriggle out of their own data. When they cannot reasonably do so, we are left with a fact. Most of them are not perfect, immutable or immortal, but even if not, no rational person can accuse them of being wrong.
OneGuy123 6y ago
And it's humans who decide what "science" is based on their incorrect p value selection and corruption and mishandling of statistics even if they mean good.
cjfd 6y ago
Philosophy, logic and science are all applied by persons and the results tend to vary depending on who is applying it. I suppose logic could be a bit more on the objective impersonal side of things but philosophy and science are definitely not. That is, only if logic is actually logic in the sense of logic. If one start talking about tings like 'logical falacies' (e.g. ad homininem, argument from authority and so on) as often is done on forums like these one is already very far from anything objective. For one thing, one is probably inclined to be much more severe in pointing out 'logical falacies' in statements that one disagrees with rather than in statement that one agrees with.

It's not a person, it's philosophy, logic, science, etc.

stretchcat 6y ago

And the people who will be the impartial applicators of reason? Who will these judges of misinformation be?

nailer 6y ago

Who determines reason?

greatgirl 6y ago
Dialectics. Immanent critique. The method of isolating the contradictions of a system so as to arrive at the best possible answer. No one said there is a quick formula for this, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
proactivesvcs 6y ago
No single person, group or authority. It is an ongoing determination by many people from a host of backgrounds, biases and intentions who still all agree on what is reasonable and what is not. It is determined by merely asking oneself "do I have doubt that is logical, fair and as unbiased as possible?". Gather enough of these people - from as wide a field as possible - and you have reason.
- nailer 6y ago
  > it is an ongoing determination by many people from a host of backgrounds, biases and intentions who still all agree on what is reasonable and what is not. Where does this happen currently?

xenocratus 6y ago

This is implying there is always a Right™ answer or way to do something - especially when it comes to policy, for example, there's plenty of space for nuance that has no objective right or wrong. Life isn't math, regardless of how much our polarised world wants it to be so

greatgirl 6y ago
We have been attempting our best to come towards the most correct answers for everything, since forever. To suggest all of a sudden that this method is irrelevant is odd. It is to suggest that we should no longer pursue truth and instead lay everything on the table and say it's all correct and you should just pick whatever makes you feel the best.
- xenocratus 6y ago
  We can't pursue Truth where there is no objective Truth to be pursued, we have to figure out what a good course of action is right now, without spending centuries to solve a problem that destroys society tomorrow. I wasn't really talking about free speech in particular, though it applies there as well. Is there a general consensus in philosophy on what The Truth About Free Speech is? Where the limits *need* to be? How to implement it in the context of large social media corporations? There isn't some grand set of values that everyone has to agree with, btw, unless you're willing to sacrifice everyone else's mental frameworks and perspectives (which might be a sacrifice you're willing to take, but I guess not everyone is so keen on :) )
proactivesvcs 6y ago
Your assertion falls apart when I ask you if there is a Right™ answer to "Is the Earth flat?". There are irrefutable answers to some questions. Others are backed up by a mountain of reproducaeble data, collected and re-checked over years, decades, by many people who go out of their way to disprove their own hypothesis and wriggle out of their own data. When they cannot reasonably do so, we are left with a fact. Most of them are not perfect, immutable or immortal, but even if not, no rational person can accuse them of being wrong.

OneGuy123 6y ago

And it's humans who decide what "science" is based on their incorrect p value selection and corruption and mishandling of statistics even if they mean good.

cjfd 6y ago

Philosophy, logic and science are all applied by persons and the results tend to vary depending on who is applying it. I suppose logic could be a bit more on the objective impersonal side of things but philosophy and science are definitely not. That is, only if logic is actually logic in the sense of logic. If one start talking about tings like 'logical falacies' (e.g. ad homininem, argument from authority and so on) as often is done on forums like these one is already very far from anything objective. For one thing, one is probably inclined to be much more severe in pointing out 'logical falacies' in statements that one disagrees with rather than in statement that one agrees with.