5 ms·

Society is regressing back to a time where idea's like those in the Pre-Enlightenment era where prevalent, hopefully we do not regress all the way back to Dark

by syshum 5y ago

Society is regressing back to a time where idea's like those in the Pre-Enlightenment era where prevalent, hopefully we do not regress all the way back to Dark Ages, where people will stoned and hanged for defying the church... In our time "the church" will likely be replaced with a new non-theistic religion of some kind, a Technocracy of "The Experts™" and "Authoritative Sources™" who are the ones that will tell us what "The Truth™" is today

AlexandrB 5y ago
> Society is regressing back to a time where idea's like those in the Pre-Enlightenment era where prevalent... I agree, people are denying vaccines work, taking fluoride out of tap water, and saying that the earth is flat. It seems like there's something seriously wrong with our media ecosystem when ideas like this are flourishing. I don't know if banning these ideas is good/effective, but we need some way to incentivize the veracity of ideas and not just their "engagement". What that mechanism might be, I don't know.
- syshum 5y ago
  >>It seems like there's something seriously wrong with our media ecosystem I think that is a symptom of the problem not the root cause >>I don't know if banning these ideas is good/effective its not, never has been, in fact has been shown to make the idea's spread further and become more extreme as people enter into information echo chambers. >but we need some way to incentivize the veracity of ideas Why? in reality the root cause is decades and decades of coddling children and the removal of critical thinking education in favor of memorization education. The root cause is the failure to teach people how to use critical thinking and logic to assess the validity of data and claims made by people. The reality is that "Trust the Experts™" is an example of this and really does make the problem worse because people are taught to just trust an authority instead of being able to look at a claim or data set and deiced for themselves if that claim should be accepted. The problem become with the "authority" people trust is wrong, either because they are a charlatan, or just ignorant themselves. However because people have been training to alway trust authority they become locked into this unable to think for themselves. The more we move to a model of messenger over message, credential over data, the worse this problem will become. The additon of punishments for those that dare to resist "authority" is also going to end badly when that authority is wrong. Keep in mind I have countless examples of authority being wrong I can cite, a big on is that for decades and during my childhood the USDA pushed the food pyramid we now know to be wrong. They were the experts and anyone that dared say "hey maybe all these carbs are bad" were shunned... Vegetable oils are a another where the experts it seems may be been very wrong. The enlightenment in part was the removal of charismatic messengers in favor of data driven objective truth. It did not matter who the person was it matter what they were saying and if they could prove their claim. All individuals were the same. We have lost that in favor of personality, credentials and authority over data, and proof. Why is the vaccine safe? "Because the CDC and FDA said so"... that is not a valid response to me. Show me the data, show me the studies, show me the proof... that is the valid response.
  - jawarner 5y ago
    For what it's worth, the studies are open. Science is a fairly transparent process. If someone is interested in educating themselves & understanding these discussions, there really is no barrier. Here's an 8-hour press release by the FDA [1]. If you want to understand the logic behind the decision-making, it is absolutely available. It's just boring to watch, I suppose. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFph7-6t34M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFph7-6t34M
    - syshum 5y ago
      But that is not the argument being used to censor people, the platforms are saying you can not disagree with the source, you can not have an opinion contrary to the source, be it WHO, CDC, or FDA They are appealing to the authority not the data, and in doing so they are proclaiming these organizations are infallible and beyond question which we know is false. Having looked at the data I made the choice for myself that the vaccine was safe for me to consume, I did not do this because the CDC said so, or because the FDA did. I did not do this because YT put a banner under a video proclaiming the CDC is an infallible god that can never be questioned
      - jawarner 5y ago
        Why I'm flummoxed by your argument is that the "infallible God" seems to be the scientific consensus. If anything, the analogy works in the opposite direction. There are many people who choose not to engage with the scientific conversation and instead choose an alternate way of understanding the world, one which is not based on population studies or pharmacology. If there's an example of a respected scientific work that has been censored, then you could change my mind.
        syshum 5y ago
        One does not have to go far, just look back to the beginning of the pandemic where many people were banned and silenced for pointing out 1. Preliminary research showing masks work contrary to the official positions of CDC and WHO 2. People talking about how masks may not be as effective as original research thought, after the CDC said masks where perfect in every-way and infallible god like barriers preventing all covid. Or talking about how masks may work but masking policies down (the AI could not tell the difference was was shutting down anyone that dared question masks or masking policy) 3. Talking about Lab Leak before it was recognized officially as a possibility by WHO and CDC 4. Any talks about treatments that are not the offical vaccines some of which do have studies showing effectiveness, and I am not talking about the "horse paste" though even banning for that is ridiculous people where banned for talking about mAb treatment before it became blessed by the CDC 5. People that were questioning and talking about actual research that was being done on surface spread, showing it was not as prevalent as "Authoritative sources". People where bleaching their groceries when they got home due to the insanity and if you called that out... BANNED you disagreed with the CDC I have more than that if you would like? I could probally triple my list of examples Censorship is always bad not matter what people believe the "greater good" is.
jawarner 5y ago
That's a funny analogy to make. Didn't the Enlightenment involve the promotion of expert knowledge, a heightened value of empirical truth?
- syshum 5y ago
  The enlightenment involved the promotion of knowledge not "expert", it promoted the belief that a claim should be proven with data, it promoted that the best way to get to the actual truth is with robust inquiry, debate, trial and argumentation To attempt to equate that with today "The Experts™" and "Authoritative Sources™" who instead of engaging in robust debate want to engage in robust censorship, these "Experts™" and "Authoritative Sources™" are more akin to Dark Ages Priests wanting to burn the heretic than they are of Enlightenment thinkers and scientists
  - jawarner 5y ago
    I still don't understand your stance. Surely the public isn't barred from engaging in the scientific conversation if they have anything meaningful to say. It's just that that conversation is not very accessible because it is so technical. That was also the case in the Enlightenment: Science was practiced by those who had the time and resources to contribute substantiative knowledge. Speaking in broad strokes, the anti-vax movement strikes me as a counter-cultural movement, an "outsider art" to the mainstream scientific conversation. It's not that they can't engage with the science, it's that they reject that conversation altogether.

by syshum 5y ago

AlexandrB 5y ago

> Society is regressing back to a time where idea's like those in the Pre-Enlightenment era where prevalent... I agree, people are denying vaccines work, taking fluoride out of tap water, and saying that the earth is flat. It seems like there's something seriously wrong with our media ecosystem when ideas like this are flourishing. I don't know if banning these ideas is good/effective, but we need some way to incentivize the veracity of ideas and not just their "engagement". What that mechanism might be, I don't know.

syshum 5y ago
>>It seems like there's something seriously wrong with our media ecosystem I think that is a symptom of the problem not the root cause >>I don't know if banning these ideas is good/effective its not, never has been, in fact has been shown to make the idea's spread further and become more extreme as people enter into information echo chambers. >but we need some way to incentivize the veracity of ideas Why? in reality the root cause is decades and decades of coddling children and the removal of critical thinking education in favor of memorization education. The root cause is the failure to teach people how to use critical thinking and logic to assess the validity of data and claims made by people. The reality is that "Trust the Experts™" is an example of this and really does make the problem worse because people are taught to just trust an authority instead of being able to look at a claim or data set and deiced for themselves if that claim should be accepted. The problem become with the "authority" people trust is wrong, either because they are a charlatan, or just ignorant themselves. However because people have been training to alway trust authority they become locked into this unable to think for themselves. The more we move to a model of messenger over message, credential over data, the worse this problem will become. The additon of punishments for those that dare to resist "authority" is also going to end badly when that authority is wrong. Keep in mind I have countless examples of authority being wrong I can cite, a big on is that for decades and during my childhood the USDA pushed the food pyramid we now know to be wrong. They were the experts and anyone that dared say "hey maybe all these carbs are bad" were shunned... Vegetable oils are a another where the experts it seems may be been very wrong. The enlightenment in part was the removal of charismatic messengers in favor of data driven objective truth. It did not matter who the person was it matter what they were saying and if they could prove their claim. All individuals were the same. We have lost that in favor of personality, credentials and authority over data, and proof. Why is the vaccine safe? "Because the CDC and FDA said so"... that is not a valid response to me. Show me the data, show me the studies, show me the proof... that is the valid response.
- jawarner 5y ago
  For what it's worth, the studies are open. Science is a fairly transparent process. If someone is interested in educating themselves & understanding these discussions, there really is no barrier. Here's an 8-hour press release by the FDA [1]. If you want to understand the logic behind the decision-making, it is absolutely available. It's just boring to watch, I suppose. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFph7-6t34M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFph7-6t34M
  - syshum 5y ago
    But that is not the argument being used to censor people, the platforms are saying you can not disagree with the source, you can not have an opinion contrary to the source, be it WHO, CDC, or FDA They are appealing to the authority not the data, and in doing so they are proclaiming these organizations are infallible and beyond question which we know is false. Having looked at the data I made the choice for myself that the vaccine was safe for me to consume, I did not do this because the CDC said so, or because the FDA did. I did not do this because YT put a banner under a video proclaiming the CDC is an infallible god that can never be questioned
    - jawarner 5y ago
      Why I'm flummoxed by your argument is that the "infallible God" seems to be the scientific consensus. If anything, the analogy works in the opposite direction. There are many people who choose not to engage with the scientific conversation and instead choose an alternate way of understanding the world, one which is not based on population studies or pharmacology. If there's an example of a respected scientific work that has been censored, then you could change my mind.
      - syshum 5y ago
        One does not have to go far, just look back to the beginning of the pandemic where many people were banned and silenced for pointing out 1. Preliminary research showing masks work contrary to the official positions of CDC and WHO 2. People talking about how masks may not be as effective as original research thought, after the CDC said masks where perfect in every-way and infallible god like barriers preventing all covid. Or talking about how masks may work but masking policies down (the AI could not tell the difference was was shutting down anyone that dared question masks or masking policy) 3. Talking about Lab Leak before it was recognized officially as a possibility by WHO and CDC 4. Any talks about treatments that are not the offical vaccines some of which do have studies showing effectiveness, and I am not talking about the "horse paste" though even banning for that is ridiculous people where banned for talking about mAb treatment before it became blessed by the CDC 5. People that were questioning and talking about actual research that was being done on surface spread, showing it was not as prevalent as "Authoritative sources". People where bleaching their groceries when they got home due to the insanity and if you called that out... BANNED you disagreed with the CDC I have more than that if you would like? I could probally triple my list of examples Censorship is always bad not matter what people believe the "greater good" is.

jawarner 5y ago

That's a funny analogy to make. Didn't the Enlightenment involve the promotion of expert knowledge, a heightened value of empirical truth?

syshum 5y ago
The enlightenment involved the promotion of knowledge not "expert", it promoted the belief that a claim should be proven with data, it promoted that the best way to get to the actual truth is with robust inquiry, debate, trial and argumentation To attempt to equate that with today "The Experts™" and "Authoritative Sources™" who instead of engaging in robust debate want to engage in robust censorship, these "Experts™" and "Authoritative Sources™" are more akin to Dark Ages Priests wanting to burn the heretic than they are of Enlightenment thinkers and scientists
- jawarner 5y ago
  I still don't understand your stance. Surely the public isn't barred from engaging in the scientific conversation if they have anything meaningful to say. It's just that that conversation is not very accessible because it is so technical. That was also the case in the Enlightenment: Science was practiced by those who had the time and resources to contribute substantiative knowledge. Speaking in broad strokes, the anti-vax movement strikes me as a counter-cultural movement, an "outsider art" to the mainstream scientific conversation. It's not that they can't engage with the science, it's that they reject that conversation altogether.