3 ms·

> if it is some BS it is all BS Have you read any books, newspapers, scientific journals, or online material recently?

by zepto 5y ago

dredmorbius 5y ago
All attempts at uncovering the truth will lead to error and mistakes. The difference is that the honest: - Are aware of this. - Own their mistakes. - Correct them. - And don't use the incidental occurrence of error as a blanket method of discrediting others. Bullshit wrapped in a veneer of truth sells far more readily than the unadulterated variety. All the better if there's only one specific bullshit point that's being injected --- why go through the risk and trouble of fabulating more than is absolutely necessary.
- zepto 5y ago
  True, but it’s hard to imagine that you are seriously suggesting that books, newspapers, scientific journals, or online material, when they make mistakes: - Own their mistakes. - Correct them. - And don't use the incidental occurrence of error as a blanket method of discrediting others
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    I am in fact seriously suggesting just that. Responsible and ethical publishers own and correct their mistakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erratum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erratum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper) https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2002/corrections-clarifications/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2002/corrections-c... The New York Times has a dedicated Corrections section: https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections At the Washington Post you'll have to search for the string "Correction:" best I can tell: https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/?query=%22correction:%22&sort=Relevance&datefilter=All%20Since%202005 https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/?query=%22correcti... The Post's corrections policy is noted here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/#corrections https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/#corre... Where stories are significant, a substantial and highlighted retraction is issued. An example from Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/a-note-to-our-readers-72612/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/a-note-to-... That was one of several notable 2014 retractons. Newsweek covers several of these: https://www.newsweek.com/faults-our-stories-year-retractions-294189 https://www.newsweek.com/faults-our-stories-year-retractions... Other typical language is "correction" followed by "regrets the error". Sample searches: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22correction%22+%22regrets+the+error%22&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22correction%2... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Awashingtonpost.com+%22correction%22+%22regrets+the+error%22&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Awashingtonpost.com+%22corre... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Aeconomist.com+%22correction%22+%22regrets+the+error%22&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Aeconomist.com+%22correction... Note that online, corrections frequently appear in an updated version of the original article, though they are then noted in an additional comment. As in this NYT example: https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-world-is-fat/ https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-world-is-f... Every last mistake and error cannot be corrected or retracted. But serious, responsible, ethical journalism makes a very earnest attempt to correct errors when they are brought to the publication's attention. And not to double-down on insisting on being wrong. I try to do the same myself. As shown in my HN history: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adredmorbius%20%22my%20error%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
    - zepto 5y ago
      In the case of newspapers this seems historical, and not true in the present. In the era where the paper was printed in limited numbers on a fixed schedule, a printed set of corrections was somewhat meaningful, although still inadequate. Today, it’s just an artifact. Online newspapers including the NYT routinely edit pages without indicating that they have done so, which is not the same as a correction. There is no reason for a newspaper page not to have an edit history other than to hide errors, or because they just don’t care enough.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - dredmorbius 5y ago
        You wrote: Today, it’s just an artifact. Online newspapers including the NYT routinely edit pages without indicating that they have done so, which is not the same as a correction. I respond: Corrections: Aug. 21, 2021 Corrections that appeared in print on Saturday, Aug. 21, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/pageoneplus/corrections-aug-21-2021.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/pageoneplus/corrections-a... That lists four articles. For yesterday's edition. Skipping back four days to the 16th, you'll find six corrections listed: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/pageoneplus/corrections-aug-19-2021.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/pageoneplus/corrections-a... It's unclear to me what definitions of "today", "just an artifact", "without indicating", or "not the same as a correction" mean in your usage, but they don't fit the actual facts of the universe I seem to be inhabiting.
        zepto 5y ago
        You ignore what I said - that this change log is obviously an artifact of the print era, and is unusable unless you actively check it against everything you read, which is clearly impractical. In no way does it constitute an honest acknowledgment of error.
        dredmorbius 5y ago

> if it is some BS it is all BS Have you read any books, newspapers, scientific journals, or online material recently?

by zepto 5y ago

> if it is some BS it is all BS Have you read any books, newspapers, scientific journals, or online material recently?

All attempts at uncovering the truth will lead to error and mistakes. The difference is that the honest: - Are aware of this. - Own their mistakes. - Correct them. - And don't use the incidental occurrence of error as a blanket method of discrediting others. Bullshit wrapped in a veneer of truth sells far more readily than the unadulterated variety. All the better if there's only one specific bullshit point that's being injected --- why go through the risk and trouble of fabulating more than is absolutely necessary.

zepto 5y ago
True, but it’s hard to imagine that you are seriously suggesting that books, newspapers, scientific journals, or online material, when they make mistakes: - Own their mistakes. - Correct them. - And don't use the incidental occurrence of error as a blanket method of discrediting others
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  I am in fact seriously suggesting just that. Responsible and ethical publishers own and correct their mistakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erratum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erratum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper) https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2002/corrections-clarifications/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2002/corrections-c... The New York Times has a dedicated Corrections section: https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections At the Washington Post you'll have to search for the string "Correction:" best I can tell: https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/?query=%22correction:%22&sort=Relevance&datefilter=All%20Since%202005 https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/?query=%22correcti... The Post's corrections policy is noted here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/#corrections https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/#corre... Where stories are significant, a substantial and highlighted retraction is issued. An example from Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/a-note-to-our-readers-72612/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/a-note-to-... That was one of several notable 2014 retractons. Newsweek covers several of these: https://www.newsweek.com/faults-our-stories-year-retractions-294189 https://www.newsweek.com/faults-our-stories-year-retractions... Other typical language is "correction" followed by "regrets the error". Sample searches: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22correction%22+%22regrets+the+error%22&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22correction%2... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Awashingtonpost.com+%22correction%22+%22regrets+the+error%22&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Awashingtonpost.com+%22corre... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Aeconomist.com+%22correction%22+%22regrets+the+error%22&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Aeconomist.com+%22correction... Note that online, corrections frequently appear in an updated version of the original article, though they are then noted in an additional comment. As in this NYT example: https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-world-is-fat/ https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-world-is-f... Every last mistake and error cannot be corrected or retracted. But serious, responsible, ethical journalism makes a very earnest attempt to correct errors when they are brought to the publication's attention. And not to double-down on insisting on being wrong. I try to do the same myself. As shown in my HN history: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adredmorbius%20%22my%20error%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
  - zepto 5y ago
    In the case of newspapers this seems historical, and not true in the present. In the era where the paper was printed in limited numbers on a fixed schedule, a printed set of corrections was somewhat meaningful, although still inadequate. Today, it’s just an artifact. Online newspapers including the NYT routinely edit pages without indicating that they have done so, which is not the same as a correction. There is no reason for a newspaper page not to have an edit history other than to hide errors, or because they just don’t care enough.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      You wrote: Today, it’s just an artifact. Online newspapers including the NYT routinely edit pages without indicating that they have done so, which is not the same as a correction. I respond: Corrections: Aug. 21, 2021 Corrections that appeared in print on Saturday, Aug. 21, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/pageoneplus/corrections-aug-21-2021.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/pageoneplus/corrections-a... That lists four articles. For yesterday's edition. Skipping back four days to the 16th, you'll find six corrections listed: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/pageoneplus/corrections-aug-19-2021.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/pageoneplus/corrections-a... It's unclear to me what definitions of "today", "just an artifact", "without indicating", or "not the same as a correction" mean in your usage, but they don't fit the actual facts of the universe I seem to be inhabiting.
      - zepto 5y ago
        You ignore what I said - that this change log is obviously an artifact of the print era, and is unusable unless you actively check it against everything you read, which is clearly impractical. In no way does it constitute an honest acknowledgment of error.
        dredmorbius 5y ago