4 ms·

While a reasonable basis, I'm not sure how a society of more than say 100 people could function if everyone did that. At some point you have to trust people. I

by dtech 5y ago

While a reasonable basis, I'm not sure how a society of more than say 100 people could function if everyone did that. At some point you have to trust people. I mean, have you even been to Finland? According to your philosophy you don't know if it exists then.

roenxi 5y ago
Sure. But then the problem becomes the highly political question of who should be trusted. If you rank people from most to least trustworthy, fact checkers just aren't at the top of the list. In today's world we can go right to the academics or people with primary sources. Why would a fact checker have any authority to declare Finland does or does not exist? It would be better to listen to someone reliable who is interested in satellites. A fact checker might easily turn out to simply be reading Wikipedia. Small Voice Does Taiwan exist?
- croon 5y ago
  Any proper fact checker states the conclusion, and then spends multiple paragraphs describing how the conclusion was made, with sources. Anyone can and should attack that reasoning or sourcing if it's lacking or faulty. It usually isn't.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    I find the usual fact checkers full of bias to an almost comical degree. Remeber the Russians?
    - croon 5y ago
      Statement without justification, then a non sequitor. If you have a point, make it. I am aware of the existence of Russians, what about them?
      - raxxorrax 5y ago
        non sequitur - As would be the trustworthyness of fact checkers which also lacks any justification. Some of those sites, I believe it was Snopes or Politifact proposed that the absence of Russian election interference is the lie of the year in 2016 or 2017. This was a complete web of lies to get to Trump for political reasons. Information of this is also highly obscured for political reasons. You find over 1000 of sources without any substantial info aside from some officials stating "high confidence" (translation: highly likely bullshit). "Lie of the year" - ridiculous circus for an embarrising situation.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
dustintrex 5y ago
That's because it doesn't: https://www.reddit.com/r/finlandConspiracy/ https://www.reddit.com/r/finlandConspiracy/
- belter 5y ago
  The conspiracy theory that Finland does not exist, has been debunked as a hoax. However nobody was yet able to actually prove that Australia is a real thing. "Australia doesn’t exist!" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2018/apr/15/australia-doesnt-exist-and-other-bizarre-geographic-conspiracies-that-wont-go-away https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2018/apr/15... https://open.spotify.com/album/3jSxZ6F7euTQJDe0fZHjBV https://open.spotify.com/album/3jSxZ6F7euTQJDe0fZHjBV https://u.osu.edu/vanzandt/2019/02/14/the-greatest-lie-ever-told-how-australia-is-fake/ https://u.osu.edu/vanzandt/2019/02/14/the-greatest-lie-ever-...
pdonis 5y ago
> At some point you have to trust people. This is true in some respects, yes. For example, I have to trust that the supply chain that brings food to my local grocery store isn't introducing toxic substances into the food, so when I open a package of food and prepare and eat it, I'm not poisoning myself. I can't possibly fact check all of the steps in that supply chain. The best I can do is to keep track of which sources have a track record of trustworthy behavior as far as I can see it. However, the scope of things for which I have to trust other people is much narrower than most people appear to think. For example: > have you even been to Finland? According to your philosophy you don't know if it exists then. My question is, why should I care? What part of my essential life activities do I have to condition on whether or not Finland exists, or what it is like? If there are people living in Finland, of course they care, but they're there--they can see for themselves that Finland exists and what it is like. But for me, in the US, unless I am planning to travel to Finland, I have no reason to care who is a trustworthy source of information about Finland and who isn't. Even if I buy products from Finland, I can judge their quality by the same means that I judge my local grocery store; I don't have to know what Finland in general is like, or if it even exists. Maybe the products that are labeled "Made in Finland" are actually made by some high-tech automated factory on a seasteading platform in the Atlantic. If they meet my requirements for quality and price, why should I care? This same reasoning applies to much, if not most, of the information we are inundated with in our daily lives: we don't actually need to have an opinion at all about how trustworthy it is, because it doesn't affect any choices we are actually going to make. We could just ignore it and it wouldn't make a difference to our actual lives. It only makes a difference because we are surrounded by governments and media organizations who have an interest in manipulating what we think, and one of the ways they do that is by trying to convince us that we do need to have strong opinions about all kinds of things that we actually don't.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  That is pretty much a Stoic argument: focus on what you can control. Ignore what you can’t. It is a very practical way to live.

by dtech 5y ago

roenxi 5y ago

Sure. But then the problem becomes the highly political question of who should be trusted. If you rank people from most to least trustworthy, fact checkers just aren't at the top of the list. In today's world we can go right to the academics or people with primary sources. Why would a fact checker have any authority to declare Finland does or does not exist? It would be better to listen to someone reliable who is interested in satellites. A fact checker might easily turn out to simply be reading Wikipedia. Small Voice Does Taiwan exist?

croon 5y ago
Any proper fact checker states the conclusion, and then spends multiple paragraphs describing how the conclusion was made, with sources. Anyone can and should attack that reasoning or sourcing if it's lacking or faulty. It usually isn't.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I find the usual fact checkers full of bias to an almost comical degree. Remeber the Russians?
  - croon 5y ago
    Statement without justification, then a non sequitor. If you have a point, make it. I am aware of the existence of Russians, what about them?
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      non sequitur - As would be the trustworthyness of fact checkers which also lacks any justification. Some of those sites, I believe it was Snopes or Politifact proposed that the absence of Russian election interference is the lie of the year in 2016 or 2017. This was a complete web of lies to get to Trump for political reasons. Information of this is also highly obscured for political reasons. You find over 1000 of sources without any substantial info aside from some officials stating "high confidence" (translation: highly likely bullshit). "Lie of the year" - ridiculous circus for an embarrising situation.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

dustintrex 5y ago

That's because it doesn't: https://www.reddit.com/r/finlandConspiracy/ https://www.reddit.com/r/finlandConspiracy/

belter 5y ago
The conspiracy theory that Finland does not exist, has been debunked as a hoax. However nobody was yet able to actually prove that Australia is a real thing. "Australia doesn’t exist!" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2018/apr/15/australia-doesnt-exist-and-other-bizarre-geographic-conspiracies-that-wont-go-away https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2018/apr/15... https://open.spotify.com/album/3jSxZ6F7euTQJDe0fZHjBV https://open.spotify.com/album/3jSxZ6F7euTQJDe0fZHjBV https://u.osu.edu/vanzandt/2019/02/14/the-greatest-lie-ever-told-how-australia-is-fake/ https://u.osu.edu/vanzandt/2019/02/14/the-greatest-lie-ever-...

pdonis 5y ago

> At some point you have to trust people. This is true in some respects, yes. For example, I have to trust that the supply chain that brings food to my local grocery store isn't introducing toxic substances into the food, so when I open a package of food and prepare and eat it, I'm not poisoning myself. I can't possibly fact check all of the steps in that supply chain. The best I can do is to keep track of which sources have a track record of trustworthy behavior as far as I can see it. However, the scope of things for which I have to trust other people is much narrower than most people appear to think. For example: > have you even been to Finland? According to your philosophy you don't know if it exists then. My question is, why should I care? What part of my essential life activities do I have to condition on whether or not Finland exists, or what it is like? If there are people living in Finland, of course they care, but they're there--they can see for themselves that Finland exists and what it is like. But for me, in the US, unless I am planning to travel to Finland, I have no reason to care who is a trustworthy source of information about Finland and who isn't. Even if I buy products from Finland, I can judge their quality by the same means that I judge my local grocery store; I don't have to know what Finland in general is like, or if it even exists. Maybe the products that are labeled "Made in Finland" are actually made by some high-tech automated factory on a seasteading platform in the Atlantic. If they meet my requirements for quality and price, why should I care? This same reasoning applies to much, if not most, of the information we are inundated with in our daily lives: we don't actually need to have an opinion at all about how trustworthy it is, because it doesn't affect any choices we are actually going to make. We could just ignore it and it wouldn't make a difference to our actual lives. It only makes a difference because we are surrounded by governments and media organizations who have an interest in manipulating what we think, and one of the ways they do that is by trying to convince us that we do need to have strong opinions about all kinds of things that we actually don't.

mbrodersen 5y ago
That is pretty much a Stoic argument: focus on what you can control. Ignore what you can’t. It is a very practical way to live.