9 ms·
No, it doesn't. It requires teaching people the tools to evaluate arguments, statements and media. I don't claim anything wrt objective truth (though I tend t
by eivarv 6y ago
No, it doesn't.
It requires teaching people the tools to evaluate arguments, statements and media.
I don't claim anything wrt objective truth (though I tend to think there is one, but whether we're able to directly observe it and/or agree on it is another matter) – I'm claiming we have tools (knowledge, cognitive ability) to weed out obviously incoherent, illogical, biased, untrustworthy or otherwise bad thought.
- Retric 6y agoMy point was detecting obviously untrustworthy isn’t enough. If a broadcast is for example inconsistent in what it’s reporting aka mentioning 7 dead then 9, then 3, etc sure you can pay attention and notice the issue. Similarly, poor logical arguments are detectable etc. However, bias can show up in what’s not reported just as easily and in that case their is nothing to detect. Essentially, you can train people to deal with poor execution, but that’s not enough when the subtle stuff is equally if not more important.
- eivarv 6y agoHowever, bias can show up in what’s not reported just as easily and in that case their is nothing to detect. You're right about not knowing what you don't know. But that doesn't mean that you should blindly trust some discriminator system (which we know can't make any technical guarantees, and comes with additional risks) instead of learning to reason about these things.