4 ms·

> the greatest value must be the freedom to doubt I used to emphatically applaud this statement, but in this era of fake news and disinformation, now I tend to

by euske 6y ago

> the greatest value must be the freedom to doubt I used to emphatically applaud this statement, but in this era of fake news and disinformation, now I tend to think differently. Of course the freedom to doubt is still important, but not all doubts are created equally. You have to beware of someone feeding you a suspicious doubt.

heresie-dabord 6y ago
> this era of fake news and disinformation To doubt means to test every proposition with intellectual integrity. And with a knowledge of established fact. This is dependent on one inhabiting a social group where successful education has improved discourse and general thinking ability. In the social context, it isn't as bad everywhere else as in the US. Propaganda has become lucrative, that's all.
JHer 6y ago
Perhaps the ones falling prey to fake news and disinformation are not doubting enough or their doubting is one-sided. What they lack is the doubt in their own thinking and believing. I believe we should question our own convictions as often as possible and try to understand where they are coming from. That is, try to be aware of how our upbringing, our current personal situation, the experiences we've had in life (and the ones we didn't have) might influence our thinking.
1ncorrect 6y ago
A concept I’ve been throwing around for a while is classifying truth. An idea is a static description, immutable, zero variables. It can exist in one of the following three states: - belief, zero supporting evidence - fact, only non-contradictatory supporting evidence - paradox, supporting and disproving evidence exists All states are valid, but only an idea classified as a fact should be relied upon as evidence for another idea. Every idea starts as a belief. A fact can change to a belief if the evidence brought to bear on it is proven to not be classified as a fact. Equally it can become a paradox if new evidence contradicts existing evidence. Resolution of a paradox would require at least two new, more precise ideas to be created, likely with a clause defining the demarcation of the paradox boundary. The paradox entity remains unchanged. Reliance on a belief to support an argument I consider ‘agnostic ignorance’, and reliance on a paradox is ‘wilful ignorance’.
abecedarius 6y ago
But he was not just saying "yay, doubt!", he was arguing that freedom to doubt was crucial to past progress, and that everyone's then-current state of knowledge was also riddled with error. Do you think this is any less true now? This part acknowledges what seems like your exact concern: > Communications between nations must promote understanding: So went another dream. But the machines of communication can be channeled or choked. What is communicated can be truth or lie. Communication is a strong force also, but for either good or bad. The change of this sort since 1955 that most comes to mind, for me, is that we have more information hazards analogous to "blueprints for a working A-bomb": now we have "genome of smallpox" and (maybe soonish) "algorithm for superhuman intelligence". But it's not like Feynman had no personal acquaintance with that category of hazards; and the current drive for censorship is way way broader. I think his case against it is just as good now, and more needed.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by euske 6y ago

heresie-dabord 6y ago

> this era of fake news and disinformation To doubt means to test every proposition with intellectual integrity. And with a knowledge of established fact. This is dependent on one inhabiting a social group where successful education has improved discourse and general thinking ability. In the social context, it isn't as bad everywhere else as in the US. Propaganda has become lucrative, that's all.

JHer 6y ago

Perhaps the ones falling prey to fake news and disinformation are not doubting enough or their doubting is one-sided. What they lack is the doubt in their own thinking and believing. I believe we should question our own convictions as often as possible and try to understand where they are coming from. That is, try to be aware of how our upbringing, our current personal situation, the experiences we've had in life (and the ones we didn't have) might influence our thinking.

1ncorrect 6y ago

A concept I’ve been throwing around for a while is classifying truth. An idea is a static description, immutable, zero variables. It can exist in one of the following three states: - belief, zero supporting evidence - fact, only non-contradictatory supporting evidence - paradox, supporting and disproving evidence exists All states are valid, but only an idea classified as a fact should be relied upon as evidence for another idea. Every idea starts as a belief. A fact can change to a belief if the evidence brought to bear on it is proven to not be classified as a fact. Equally it can become a paradox if new evidence contradicts existing evidence. Resolution of a paradox would require at least two new, more precise ideas to be created, likely with a clause defining the demarcation of the paradox boundary. The paradox entity remains unchanged. Reliance on a belief to support an argument I consider ‘agnostic ignorance’, and reliance on a paradox is ‘wilful ignorance’.

abecedarius 6y ago

But he was not just saying "yay, doubt!", he was arguing that freedom to doubt was crucial to past progress, and that everyone's then-current state of knowledge was also riddled with error. Do you think this is any less true now? This part acknowledges what seems like your exact concern: > Communications between nations must promote understanding: So went another dream. But the machines of communication can be channeled or choked. What is communicated can be truth or lie. Communication is a strong force also, but for either good or bad. The change of this sort since 1955 that most comes to mind, for me, is that we have more information hazards analogous to "blueprints for a working A-bomb": now we have "genome of smallpox" and (maybe soonish) "algorithm for superhuman intelligence". But it's not like Feynman had no personal acquaintance with that category of hazards; and the current drive for censorship is way way broader. I think his case against it is just as good now, and more needed.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]