3 ms·

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 decid

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.

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.