6 ms·

But who will be the arbiter of truth?

by polalavik 5y ago

stuntkite 5y ago
I’m currently not that busy really. Let me know when the arbiter position opens up and I’ll rearrange my schedule.
forgotmypw17 5y ago
Web of Trust
wwweston 5y ago
Any society that is premised on the rule of law already has to solve that problem in the enforcement; there is no rule of law without arbitration of facts relating to whether the law is upheld or not. So, probably the courts. That's an imperfect solution, but it beats the hell out of the position that any attempt to arbitrate the truth is unacceptably oppressive. On another level: everyone has an obligation to arbitrate the truth as honestly and ably as they're capable, in every domain they have responsibility for, first and foremost in training themselves to be more careful about their own blind spots, tendencies, incentives, and limits, and then in exercising whatever influence and authority they have.
- errantmind 5y ago
  The courts are specialists in the law, not the truth. I sincerely doubt them deciding what is true and what isn't "beats the hell out of the position that any attempt to arbitrate the truth is unacceptably oppressive". It would quickly turn into a dystopian nightmare. Have you never thought about why freedom of speech is an important and worthy fundamental right?
  - wwweston 5y ago
    > The courts are specialists in the law, not the truth You're confusing the fact that courts are legal institutions directed by legal professionals with the conception that's all they are. In fact, a court is a process. That process is guided by law, and results in legal findings, but it is not limited to the legal sphere when it comes to findings of fact and truth. Where a court lacks specialists in truth, advocates on both sides will find whatever ways they can to bring them to the discussion. And again, there is no such thing as rule of law without examining questions truth. You want liability for poor engineering standards? Courts must ascertain what good engineering standards are. You want murder to be illegal, and people to be tried for violating murder laws? Courts must ascertain evidence, often scientific evidence relating to whether or not someone is guilty. A court without capacity or authority to weigh in on truth cannot apply the law. > Have you never thought about why freedom of speech is an important and worthy fundamental right? Enough to know that speech and robust discourse are in fact a significant part of courtroom proceedings.
    - errantmind 5y ago
      I confused nothing. In your examples, the court isn't the arbiter of truth, they examine the truth as an input to interpret and apply the law. They aren't deciding the truth as an output, except as it relates to the law and their rulings. Once you have a courtroom deciding 'the truth' without respect to the law, that is my exit signal for that particular society.
      - wwweston 5y ago
        > In your examples, the court isn't the arbiter of truth, they examine the truth as an input to interpret and apply the law. They aren't deciding the truth as an output LOL nice semantic game. Nobody thinks "arbiter of truth" means that court could, like, rule on a new gravitational constant or something and it would be so. It means that a court is a socially formalized process of speech & discourse for arbitrating who has the better case for accurately understanding a given question of truth. Which again, is absolutely necessary -- there will always be questions about what is or is not true at the heart of every court case. Including already existing content-of-speech related laws like defamation. Creating a class of entities that opt-in to heightened obligations on this front in order to address the problems as the AC was thinking wouldn't change this.
        errantmind 5y ago
        Happy as usual to strike a nerve. Your argument is more dependent on semantics than mine. It sounds like you want some kind of labeling system, kind of like 'USDA Organic' certification, but for news organizations. Sure, the courts could try to interpret whether or not a news organization satisfies some criteria for this label, but I wouldn't call the result of their ruling 'the truth'. Assuming consensus could be found among 'experts', consensus isn't a magic bullet. I have no doubt this would turn into a game of cherry-picking sources and feed the litigation culture we have. I personally wouldn't attribute any increased credibility nor usefulness to any such labeling scheme. I would actually trust it less and avoid it entirely. And yes, if such a system existed people would actually think the output of the process you describe is the absolute truth, much like a gravitational constant. It would further bifurcate our society and in the end, likely be co-opted by some political party to silence the other.
wizzwizz4 5y ago
Courts currently do a decent job at determining some truth (whodunnit) – while a lot of innocents get convicted (and sometimes death row'd, in the more backwards corners of the world), it's pretty good within its limited domain of truthseeking.
pessimizer 5y ago
We'll end up with licensing of journalists, just like every fascist state. People without a license will not be limited in what they can say, but they will be limited in what they can record or distribute, especially if it crosses state lines or borders. It'll be like what authoritarians say about driving: speaking may be a right, but being heard is a privilege. Free speech will be defined down to making noise with your mouth when outside of the company of anyone who might be offended or exposed to disloyalty. We'll be prosecuted for sending communications across state lines to mislead a child under Texas's Anti-Critical Race Theory statute. We're nearly there already, happy to ban clearly-marked Iranian, Russian, and Chinese state media. Those actions have already been used by private media to ban US journalists by associations as weak as sharing the same opinions as enemy media outlets.

But who will be the arbiter of truth?

stuntkite 5y ago

I’m currently not that busy really. Let me know when the arbiter position opens up and I’ll rearrange my schedule.

forgotmypw17 5y ago

Web of Trust

wwweston 5y ago

Any society that is premised on the rule of law already has to solve that problem in the enforcement; there is no rule of law without arbitration of facts relating to whether the law is upheld or not. So, probably the courts. That's an imperfect solution, but it beats the hell out of the position that any attempt to arbitrate the truth is unacceptably oppressive. On another level: everyone has an obligation to arbitrate the truth as honestly and ably as they're capable, in every domain they have responsibility for, first and foremost in training themselves to be more careful about their own blind spots, tendencies, incentives, and limits, and then in exercising whatever influence and authority they have.

errantmind 5y ago
The courts are specialists in the law, not the truth. I sincerely doubt them deciding what is true and what isn't "beats the hell out of the position that any attempt to arbitrate the truth is unacceptably oppressive". It would quickly turn into a dystopian nightmare. Have you never thought about why freedom of speech is an important and worthy fundamental right?
- wwweston 5y ago
  > The courts are specialists in the law, not the truth You're confusing the fact that courts are legal institutions directed by legal professionals with the conception that's all they are. In fact, a court is a process. That process is guided by law, and results in legal findings, but it is not limited to the legal sphere when it comes to findings of fact and truth. Where a court lacks specialists in truth, advocates on both sides will find whatever ways they can to bring them to the discussion. And again, there is no such thing as rule of law without examining questions truth. You want liability for poor engineering standards? Courts must ascertain what good engineering standards are. You want murder to be illegal, and people to be tried for violating murder laws? Courts must ascertain evidence, often scientific evidence relating to whether or not someone is guilty. A court without capacity or authority to weigh in on truth cannot apply the law. > Have you never thought about why freedom of speech is an important and worthy fundamental right? Enough to know that speech and robust discourse are in fact a significant part of courtroom proceedings.
  - errantmind 5y ago
    I confused nothing. In your examples, the court isn't the arbiter of truth, they examine the truth as an input to interpret and apply the law. They aren't deciding the truth as an output, except as it relates to the law and their rulings. Once you have a courtroom deciding 'the truth' without respect to the law, that is my exit signal for that particular society.
    - wwweston 5y ago
      > In your examples, the court isn't the arbiter of truth, they examine the truth as an input to interpret and apply the law. They aren't deciding the truth as an output LOL nice semantic game. Nobody thinks "arbiter of truth" means that court could, like, rule on a new gravitational constant or something and it would be so. It means that a court is a socially formalized process of speech & discourse for arbitrating who has the better case for accurately understanding a given question of truth. Which again, is absolutely necessary -- there will always be questions about what is or is not true at the heart of every court case. Including already existing content-of-speech related laws like defamation. Creating a class of entities that opt-in to heightened obligations on this front in order to address the problems as the AC was thinking wouldn't change this.
      - errantmind 5y ago
        Happy as usual to strike a nerve. Your argument is more dependent on semantics than mine. It sounds like you want some kind of labeling system, kind of like 'USDA Organic' certification, but for news organizations. Sure, the courts could try to interpret whether or not a news organization satisfies some criteria for this label, but I wouldn't call the result of their ruling 'the truth'. Assuming consensus could be found among 'experts', consensus isn't a magic bullet. I have no doubt this would turn into a game of cherry-picking sources and feed the litigation culture we have. I personally wouldn't attribute any increased credibility nor usefulness to any such labeling scheme. I would actually trust it less and avoid it entirely. And yes, if such a system existed people would actually think the output of the process you describe is the absolute truth, much like a gravitational constant. It would further bifurcate our society and in the end, likely be co-opted by some political party to silence the other.

wizzwizz4 5y ago

Courts currently do a decent job at determining some truth (whodunnit) – while a lot of innocents get convicted (and sometimes death row'd, in the more backwards corners of the world), it's pretty good within its limited domain of truthseeking.

pessimizer 5y ago

We'll end up with licensing of journalists, just like every fascist state. People without a license will not be limited in what they can say, but they will be limited in what they can record or distribute, especially if it crosses state lines or borders. It'll be like what authoritarians say about driving: speaking may be a right, but being heard is a privilege. Free speech will be defined down to making noise with your mouth when outside of the company of anyone who might be offended or exposed to disloyalty. We'll be prosecuted for sending communications across state lines to mislead a child under Texas's Anti-Critical Race Theory statute. We're nearly there already, happy to ban clearly-marked Iranian, Russian, and Chinese state media. Those actions have already been used by private media to ban US journalists by associations as weak as sharing the same opinions as enemy media outlets.