12 ms·

I am 44 and if I had to sum up what I've learned in my life into one concept it would be this: The truth, real truth, is EXTREMELY hard to ascertain. Therefore

I am 44 and if I had to sum up what I've learned in my life into one concept it would be this: The truth, real truth, is EXTREMELY hard to ascertain. Therefore, be open to new ideas, but slow to accept anything as absolute truth. Those in power push narratives. Conflicts of interest make data questionable. "Experts" are just people with their own inherent biases. And often we simply learn new things. Therefore, I can think of very few things more damaging to society and free speech than "fact checkers". Almost always I find that their "facts" are nothing more than the "opinions" of the most powerful and influential group at the time, and are usually entangled with politics. In short, "fact checkers" don't actually understand the definition of what a fact is, but are quick to declare them, and this is contrary to my experience of real, actual truth.

new_stranger 5y ago
You're over-complicating this. Facts come from studies that have been published which are disproven four years later when finally repeated. So for a couple years at least, it's always clear what the truth is.
- nu11ptr 5y ago
  Truth, real truth, never changes - which is why it is so important to be slow to declare it. Our best collective understanding at a particular time is exactly that, but that is different than truth or fact, because often that understanding turns out to be wrong, which is why it is so crucial that dissenting opinions are heard.
  - aficiomaquinas 5y ago
    I think it would be interesting if you could share some examples of what you believe to be real truths that never change.
  - new_stranger 5y ago
    Truth that never changes is not beneficial for planning. I recommend you find a more useful, relative truth. Don't get me wrong, it's important you know the real truth, but that isn't often the one you gain much from promoting. Promoting actual truth can be rather damming at times.
    - xondono 5y ago
      Relative truth is more dangerous for planning. I don’t plan to exit my apartment through the window because I know there’s no relative truth of what will happen.
      - ultra_nick 5y ago
        Quick relative truths are used because the alternative is getting burned alive.
        zaphar 5y ago
        The absolute truth in your statement is the threat of getting burned alive. You make the decision to escape based on that absolute truth and then you choose the route based on relative probabilities to survive. But you wouldn't even be trying to escape at all if not for the absolute truth that a fire will kill or severely harm you if you stay.
    - andrewflnr 5y ago
      An actual unchanging truth is extremely beneficial for planning. But if you're planning with open eyes, you know that what you actually have are probabilities based on what you know when you make the plan, which I believe to be GP's point. Anyway, there's no other definition of "truth" that isn't a mockery of the word as used. In practice you work with the closest you can get at the moment, but you don't redefine your terms down to match.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      There is no such thing as relative truth. You mean belief, which causes major problems when conflated with truth. Belief is useful for planning, but needs a separate static truth to have predictive value.
- FormerBandmate 5y ago
  It gets harder to disprove things when you ban anything that goes against the temporary truth
downWidOutaFite 5y ago
So you want to censor fact checkers?
- ironmagma 5y ago
  Limiting speech (of anyone) is a band-aid for poor critical thinking skills. No speech would be dangerous if people were smart enough. Unfortunately we just don't value intelligence or education in America, and that is the real problem.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  No, don't censor them. They should be allowed to post "this is false" all they want in the comment box, just like everyone else is. They just shouldn't get special powers, like blurring out your article and putting their comment directly over it, instead of in the comment section.
  - ViViDboarder 5y ago
    So you want to censor Facebook?
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      What in my comment led you to that conclusion?
      - throwawaygh 5y ago
        You're saying that Facebook should be compelled to host speech and that its employees may, at most, make a comment about that speech in the comment section. How would you feel if I told you that you must put a campaign placard in your front yard, and that if you don't like it you may always put a post-it note under the sign expressing your discontent?
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
BitwiseFool 5y ago
>"In short, "fact checkers" don't actually understand the definition of what a fact is, but are quick to declare them, and this is contrary to my experience of real, actual truth." I'd go a step further and assert that these "fact checkers" play fast and loose with the definition of words and the meaning of language. Here is the absolute best example I can think of: "Did a ‘Convicted Terrorist’ Sit on the Board of a BLM Funding Body?"[1] What's True: Susan Rosenberg has served as vice chair of the board of directors for Thousand Currents, an organization that provides fundraising and fiscal sponsorship for the Black Lives Matter Global Movement. She was an active member of revolutionary left-wing movements whose illegal activities included bombing U.S. government buildings and committing armed robberies. What's Undetermined: In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism." [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ Edit: I apologize for the unwieldy formatting of this post. But I keep finding more disturbing content from the snopes article that I must share. >"In her memoir, Rosenberg wrote of her 1984 arrest in New Jersey that “there was no immediate, specific plan to use the explosives” with which she and Blunk were caught. ..." >"Earlier in her book, Rosenberg indicated that she was comfortable, at least at one point in time, with bombing government buildings:" >"proven record of using bomb attacks to influence the wider American public and advance their cause. As such, a supportable (though not definitive) case exists for claiming that the crimes of which Rosenberg was convicted in 1985 were indeed acts of domestic terrorism." The author(s) are making every rhetorical excuse they can imagine. Yes, she admits in her book she was comfortable with using them. Yes, she did technically get caught with them. But you must keep in mind that there were no immediate plans to use them. >"In any event, despite the existence of a definition of domestic terrorism in federal law, a discrete criminal offense of domestic terrorism does not exist, and did not exist in the 1980s. As a result, even if Rosenberg’s activities perfectly met the definition of domestic terrorism currently set out in federal law, and even if that definition existed in the 1980s, she could not have been charged with, tried for and convicted of domestic terrorism as such." Look, dear reader, even if everything you learned about this situation is screaming "domestic terrorist", you HAVE to understand that by definition, she can't be one because of all the technicalities I have shown you. Case closed.
moksly 5y ago
I don’t think fact checkers are an enemy of free speech. The entire foundation of science is build upon the process of being able to fact check each other’s findings. There has also never really been a period in western civilisation where the news media wasn’t heavily controlled and fact checked by powerful editors. The real issue isn’t fact checkers, it’s that Facebook isn’t held accountable. If we want a functioning democracy, we need to stop giving major corporations a pass because the manipulation that happens on their platforms is created and run by users. That’s not how we treated News Papers and it’s not how we should treat Social Networks. If Facebook has really been a knowing participant in genocides, then Mark Zuckerberg belongs in the Haag as far as I am concerned.
- nradov 5y ago
  The scientific method does not presume to produce or check "facts". Real science is based on probabilities. Individuals have to set their own criteria as to when level of probability they want to classify as a fact.
- sewellstephens 5y ago
  Fact checkers are totally an enemy of free speech. They flag posts saying that is so called "information" is inaccurate and that people shouldn't be able to see it. If it is false is it really right to flag the post. I mean yes it is false but as Americans we are suppost to have free speech when we don't.
  - jackson1442 5y ago
    > If it is false is it really right to flag the post. I mean yes it is false but as Americans we are suppost to have free speech when we don't. Your first amendment right to free speech is a limited freedom from the government stating that the government cannot stifle or compel your speech. Facebook is not (yet) the government, so the 1A protections do not apply to Facebook. After all, if Facebook were forced to host content they didn't want to host, that would be considered compelled speech. I would argue that if a post is verifiably, unequivocally false it is right to flag it as such. Maybe limit its reach in "discovery" platforms but still show it to followers/friends. This is a very, very small percentage of posts (think: "the earth is flat," not "do vaccines really work?"). These warnings should link to reputable, peer-reviewed research as a primary source and a reputable secondary source for those who don't want to read the research paper.
jhedwards 5y ago
> "Experts" are just people with their own inherent biases I get where you're going here, and I don't totally disagree, but that's not "just" what experts are. Typically experts are people who have spent far more time than other people doing exactly what you're describing: slowly sifting through and cross-referencing data, asking questions, digging up resources, and testing hypothesis. It's good to be skeptical, and it's important to understand that experts have bias too, but there's a difference between someone who has passively consumed information in a biased manner and an expert who has dedicated real research to arrive at their viewpoint. Being able to consume and be critical of information from biased experts while still benefiting from and being enriched by their knowledge and expertise (instead of disregarding it because you disagree) is I think the crown jewel of "critical thinking".
- NullPrefix 5y ago
  >Typically experts are people who have spent far more time than other people doing exactly what you're describing: slowly sifting through and cross-referencing data, asking questions, digging up resources, and testing hypothesis. Are we still talking about Facebook fact checking experts?
- huntertwo 5y ago
  > there's a difference between someone who has passively consumed information in a biased manner and an expert who has dedicated real research to arrive at their viewpoint. Which camp does the fact checker fall into?
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Jamie Metzl lays out an incredible delusional narrative constructed by health experts about the Pangolin/intermediate host theory for Sars-COV-2 origins, 4 hours of in-depth discussion, highly recommend. Experts made a U-turn but not because of typical respectful scientific protocol of discovering new facts (and therefore changing their minds), but rather due to peer-pressure, politics and group-think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K78jqx9fx2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K78jqx9fx2I
- cogman10 5y ago
cblconfederate 5y ago
I think the broader lesson is: Do not fight authoritarians with more authoritarianism.
dfxm12 5y ago
The truth, real truth, is EXTREMELY hard to ascertain. Therefore, be open to new ideas, but slow to accept anything as absolute truth. Talking about trying to find an "absolute truth" is disingenuous. Yeah, we absolutely know 1+1=2, but it's impossible to absolutely know how a stock will perform. Often times, a situation doesn't call for finding "the real" or "absolute" truth, but coming to a conclusion using only the best info you have on hand at the moment. In most cases, you can find the best info. You have to know how to find it though, how to weigh one source against another. It's like the old proverb about teaching a man to fish rather than giving them a fish. Learning "how to fish" is something you're taught in school, but then again, there are those in power that are making it harder to get a proper education. That's something to be wary of. They aren't just taking our fish, but our ability to fish.
- nu11ptr 5y ago
  I think what I'm trying to say is that because absolute truth is so hard to determine, it is imperative that people have the ability to decide for themselves from the data what they believe to be true, even if it is "wrong" (because sometimes what is "wrong" turns out to be true in the end).
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    I'd go a step further and add that many "truths" are also conditionally dependent on time and the current state of the world. It used to be true that aluminum was more valuable than gold, now that is no longer the case.
Ansil849 5y ago
> "Experts" are just people with their own inherent biases. This is an absurd and false statement, and is a perfect summation of why so much mis/disinformation floats around and is so popular in today's online world. Experts do indeed have their own inherent biases. This part is a glib truism because experts are people, and all people have biases which both consciously and unconsciously influence their decision making. But that is not "just" what experts are. Experts are people who have, by definition, expertise in a given subject matter. Unless you too are an equal expert in a given topic, experts--once again by definition--know more than you do in that field. It doesn't mean you need to take what they say as gospel, so to speak, but it does mean that when the choice is to listen to 'random person on the internet' versus 'someone who has studied something for years and has made valued contributions to the field', the two-despite both having biases-are not on equal footing.
- trident5000 5y ago
  "Experts" are wrong all the time. I have doctor who didnt even order my mri with iodine last week, because hes a fool. He didnt even know that was an option. He also didnt know ultrasound to find an injury was an option. I know more than this doctor on ligament tears and how to treat them at this point and thats supposed to be his job. This is just one example but I find new ones every week where "experts" in all fields have no clue what they're doing. This obviously isnt to say all experts are not knowledgeable, but theres plenty who are not and often they are in charge. Thats why taking their opinion as ultimate truth without question is dangerous.
  - Ansil849 5y ago
    Yes, there are people who are shitty at their jobs. Again, this is a glib truism. There are shitty doctors and programmers as much as there are shitty waiters and binmen. > Thats why taking their opinion as ultimate truth without question is dangerous. Agree. Which is why I explicitly stated: > It doesn't mean you need to take what they say as gospel, so to speak, but it does mean that when the choice is to listen to 'random person on the internet' versus 'someone who has studied something for years and has made valued contributions to the field', the two-despite both having biases-are not on equal footing. I'm sorry that it sounds like you have a shitty doctor. The solution is to find a better one, not to renounce doctors.
steelstraw 5y ago
It's the same as the Ministry of Truth. Orwellian and arrogant to the extreme and will always be abused by those in power. Who fact checks the fact checkers?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
kypro 5y ago
I honestly don't know how people navigate in society without this being plainly obvious to them. The number of people who believe most claims can be checked to any level of certainty is genuinely worrying and highlights a fundamental lack of critical thinking within our society, and therefore democratic process. As you say, most of the time these aren't "facts", but usually opinions or hypotheses based on a subject interruption of some data. The truth is even if 99% of the evidence we have today suggests masks work, this doesn't mean masks work, just that it's very likely they do assuming there isn't some bias in the research. The reason I mention bias is because it's simply true that in the past research on things like contentious subjects like climate change, smoking and various diets have been biased by corporate interest. I think the problem we have with misinformation today is less that people sometimes believe the wrong things, but they believe the wrong things with high levels of conviction and passion. The first step in the solution to misinformation in my opinion should be to promote an attitude similar to yours -- one of general scepticism and an openness to new information and beliefs.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  There was a Stanford professor that argued that "We don't have high quality evidence for masks"[0]. Just asking for more studies to be done. Note the emphasis on "high quality". He was cancelled, fired and smeared by the university and the media. Here are some studies that probably need to be done more carefully because they conclude "Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection."[1]. So what's wrong with questioning and asking for more to be done? [0] https://thefederalist.com/2021/09/15/stanford-faculty-smear-professor-who-accurately-summarized-data-on-masks/ https://thefederalist.com/2021/09/15/stanford-faculty-smear-... [1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
  - dfxm12 5y ago
    Who was fired by university? Certainly not the professor the article you quoted centers on, who, as of posting, is still employed by Stanford according to both Stanford: https://healthpolicy.fsi.stanford.edu/people/jay_bhattacharya https://healthpolicy.fsi.stanford.edu/people/jay_bhattachary... and his own linked in profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jbhattacharya https://www.linkedin.com/in/jbhattacharya Kinda ironic, given the topic.
awb 5y ago
> The truth, real truth, is EXTREMELY hard to ascertain It’s really challenging for me to speak in a way that’s unarguable. For example, instead of saying “COVID is now…”, saying “I read an article that says COVID is now…”. The first sentence is arguable, the second is unarguable because it’s my personal experience. How often do you read articles or reporting that state unarguable truths? Even a slight tweak from “COVID cases are spiking…” to “The NY Department of Health released data showing an X% increase in reported COVID cases statewide” makes a lot of difference in how I perceive the potential bias or truthiness of the content I’m reading.
- dkn775 5y ago
  Strongly agree. A lot of choices are made in the use of language. This happened a lot with the Jan 6th event. Some even proudly labeling it an insurrection when they made statements I noticed. It was like the language choice was used fearlessly. The Covid headlines as you mention are another huge one. Ive heard surge so many times and it’s been completely remade into an indication of a massive spike no matter the real context. Even if the cases really surging, I’ve always hated the use of words that take the ability away from the reader to tell for themselves what happened. A similar issue is in finding raw video of events, like rittenhouse shooting. So much of the results were subjectively selected clips w the news anchors speaking over it. I don’t want to be told what happened, I want the raw facts.
xtracto 5y ago
The truth... the real truth is sometimes even scientifically impossible to find, like it is parodied in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ua-WVg1SsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ua-WVg1SsA
tiahura 5y ago
I’m a bit older and concur. One issue driving it is the abandonment of personal responsibility for any aspect of our lives. Americans have it constantly drilled into them to expect authority figures to take the lead on providing our basic necessities, handling workplace disputes, obtaining medical care, etc., why should we be surprised that they’ve lost the ability to think for themselves?
HWR_14 5y ago
> "Experts" are just people with their own inherent biases. Experts are usually correct. I have no idea why you would think otherwise. Now, experts in one area often misapply that authority to others where they are not expert, but within their domain they are most often right. And I have yet to see that not be the case.
5etho 5y ago
I swear this is the worse comment I saw on HN, I'm going very political here: I'm not native english speaker, but calling fact checkers more damaging to society then: fox news, qanon, american nazism, evangelical believes, mormons, all christianity, school schootings, obama being war criminal for drone bombing iraqis, climate catastrphy and propping up islam regimes in saudi arabia etc, war on public transport by motor-lobby, end of democracy in us I could go for hours, I smell right wing bullshit from miles, or OP is autistic

new_stranger 5y ago

You're over-complicating this. Facts come from studies that have been published which are disproven four years later when finally repeated. So for a couple years at least, it's always clear what the truth is.

nu11ptr 5y ago
Truth, real truth, never changes - which is why it is so important to be slow to declare it. Our best collective understanding at a particular time is exactly that, but that is different than truth or fact, because often that understanding turns out to be wrong, which is why it is so crucial that dissenting opinions are heard.
- aficiomaquinas 5y ago
  I think it would be interesting if you could share some examples of what you believe to be real truths that never change.
- new_stranger 5y ago
  Truth that never changes is not beneficial for planning. I recommend you find a more useful, relative truth. Don't get me wrong, it's important you know the real truth, but that isn't often the one you gain much from promoting. Promoting actual truth can be rather damming at times.
  - xondono 5y ago
    Relative truth is more dangerous for planning. I don’t plan to exit my apartment through the window because I know there’s no relative truth of what will happen.
    - ultra_nick 5y ago
      Quick relative truths are used because the alternative is getting burned alive.
      - zaphar 5y ago
        The absolute truth in your statement is the threat of getting burned alive. You make the decision to escape based on that absolute truth and then you choose the route based on relative probabilities to survive. But you wouldn't even be trying to escape at all if not for the absolute truth that a fire will kill or severely harm you if you stay.
  - andrewflnr 5y ago
    An actual unchanging truth is extremely beneficial for planning. But if you're planning with open eyes, you know that what you actually have are probabilities based on what you know when you make the plan, which I believe to be GP's point. Anyway, there's no other definition of "truth" that isn't a mockery of the word as used. In practice you work with the closest you can get at the moment, but you don't redefine your terms down to match.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    There is no such thing as relative truth. You mean belief, which causes major problems when conflated with truth. Belief is useful for planning, but needs a separate static truth to have predictive value.
FormerBandmate 5y ago
It gets harder to disprove things when you ban anything that goes against the temporary truth

downWidOutaFite 5y ago

So you want to censor fact checkers?

ironmagma 5y ago
Limiting speech (of anyone) is a band-aid for poor critical thinking skills. No speech would be dangerous if people were smart enough. Unfortunately we just don't value intelligence or education in America, and that is the real problem.
josephcsible 5y ago
No, don't censor them. They should be allowed to post "this is false" all they want in the comment box, just like everyone else is. They just shouldn't get special powers, like blurring out your article and putting their comment directly over it, instead of in the comment section.
- ViViDboarder 5y ago
  So you want to censor Facebook?
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    What in my comment led you to that conclusion?
    - throwawaygh 5y ago
      You're saying that Facebook should be compelled to host speech and that its employees may, at most, make a comment about that speech in the comment section. How would you feel if I told you that you must put a campaign placard in your front yard, and that if you don't like it you may always put a post-it note under the sign expressing your discontent?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

BitwiseFool 5y ago

>"In short, "fact checkers" don't actually understand the definition of what a fact is, but are quick to declare them, and this is contrary to my experience of real, actual truth." I'd go a step further and assert that these "fact checkers" play fast and loose with the definition of words and the meaning of language. Here is the absolute best example I can think of: "Did a ‘Convicted Terrorist’ Sit on the Board of a BLM Funding Body?"[1] What's True: Susan Rosenberg has served as vice chair of the board of directors for Thousand Currents, an organization that provides fundraising and fiscal sponsorship for the Black Lives Matter Global Movement. She was an active member of revolutionary left-wing movements whose illegal activities included bombing U.S. government buildings and committing armed robberies. What's Undetermined: In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism." [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ Edit: I apologize for the unwieldy formatting of this post. But I keep finding more disturbing content from the snopes article that I must share. >"In her memoir, Rosenberg wrote of her 1984 arrest in New Jersey that “there was no immediate, specific plan to use the explosives” with which she and Blunk were caught. ..." >"Earlier in her book, Rosenberg indicated that she was comfortable, at least at one point in time, with bombing government buildings:" >"proven record of using bomb attacks to influence the wider American public and advance their cause. As such, a supportable (though not definitive) case exists for claiming that the crimes of which Rosenberg was convicted in 1985 were indeed acts of domestic terrorism." The author(s) are making every rhetorical excuse they can imagine. Yes, she admits in her book she was comfortable with using them. Yes, she did technically get caught with them. But you must keep in mind that there were no immediate plans to use them. >"In any event, despite the existence of a definition of domestic terrorism in federal law, a discrete criminal offense of domestic terrorism does not exist, and did not exist in the 1980s. As a result, even if Rosenberg’s activities perfectly met the definition of domestic terrorism currently set out in federal law, and even if that definition existed in the 1980s, she could not have been charged with, tried for and convicted of domestic terrorism as such." Look, dear reader, even if everything you learned about this situation is screaming "domestic terrorist", you HAVE to understand that by definition, she can't be one because of all the technicalities I have shown you. Case closed.

moksly 5y ago

I don’t think fact checkers are an enemy of free speech. The entire foundation of science is build upon the process of being able to fact check each other’s findings. There has also never really been a period in western civilisation where the news media wasn’t heavily controlled and fact checked by powerful editors. The real issue isn’t fact checkers, it’s that Facebook isn’t held accountable. If we want a functioning democracy, we need to stop giving major corporations a pass because the manipulation that happens on their platforms is created and run by users. That’s not how we treated News Papers and it’s not how we should treat Social Networks. If Facebook has really been a knowing participant in genocides, then Mark Zuckerberg belongs in the Haag as far as I am concerned.

nradov 5y ago
The scientific method does not presume to produce or check "facts". Real science is based on probabilities. Individuals have to set their own criteria as to when level of probability they want to classify as a fact.
sewellstephens 5y ago
Fact checkers are totally an enemy of free speech. They flag posts saying that is so called "information" is inaccurate and that people shouldn't be able to see it. If it is false is it really right to flag the post. I mean yes it is false but as Americans we are suppost to have free speech when we don't.
- jackson1442 5y ago
  > If it is false is it really right to flag the post. I mean yes it is false but as Americans we are suppost to have free speech when we don't. Your first amendment right to free speech is a limited freedom from the government stating that the government cannot stifle or compel your speech. Facebook is not (yet) the government, so the 1A protections do not apply to Facebook. After all, if Facebook were forced to host content they didn't want to host, that would be considered compelled speech. I would argue that if a post is verifiably, unequivocally false it is right to flag it as such. Maybe limit its reach in "discovery" platforms but still show it to followers/friends. This is a very, very small percentage of posts (think: "the earth is flat," not "do vaccines really work?"). These warnings should link to reputable, peer-reviewed research as a primary source and a reputable secondary source for those who don't want to read the research paper.

jhedwards 5y ago

> "Experts" are just people with their own inherent biases I get where you're going here, and I don't totally disagree, but that's not "just" what experts are. Typically experts are people who have spent far more time than other people doing exactly what you're describing: slowly sifting through and cross-referencing data, asking questions, digging up resources, and testing hypothesis. It's good to be skeptical, and it's important to understand that experts have bias too, but there's a difference between someone who has passively consumed information in a biased manner and an expert who has dedicated real research to arrive at their viewpoint. Being able to consume and be critical of information from biased experts while still benefiting from and being enriched by their knowledge and expertise (instead of disregarding it because you disagree) is I think the crown jewel of "critical thinking".

NullPrefix 5y ago
>Typically experts are people who have spent far more time than other people doing exactly what you're describing: slowly sifting through and cross-referencing data, asking questions, digging up resources, and testing hypothesis. Are we still talking about Facebook fact checking experts?
huntertwo 5y ago
> there's a difference between someone who has passively consumed information in a biased manner and an expert who has dedicated real research to arrive at their viewpoint. Which camp does the fact checker fall into?
systemvoltage 5y ago
Jamie Metzl lays out an incredible delusional narrative constructed by health experts about the Pangolin/intermediate host theory for Sars-COV-2 origins, 4 hours of in-depth discussion, highly recommend. Experts made a U-turn but not because of typical respectful scientific protocol of discovering new facts (and therefore changing their minds), but rather due to peer-pressure, politics and group-think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K78jqx9fx2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K78jqx9fx2I
cogman10 5y ago

cblconfederate 5y ago

I think the broader lesson is: Do not fight authoritarians with more authoritarianism.

dfxm12 5y ago

The truth, real truth, is EXTREMELY hard to ascertain. Therefore, be open to new ideas, but slow to accept anything as absolute truth. Talking about trying to find an "absolute truth" is disingenuous. Yeah, we absolutely know 1+1=2, but it's impossible to absolutely know how a stock will perform. Often times, a situation doesn't call for finding "the real" or "absolute" truth, but coming to a conclusion using only the best info you have on hand at the moment. In most cases, you can find the best info. You have to know how to find it though, how to weigh one source against another. It's like the old proverb about teaching a man to fish rather than giving them a fish. Learning "how to fish" is something you're taught in school, but then again, there are those in power that are making it harder to get a proper education. That's something to be wary of. They aren't just taking our fish, but our ability to fish.

nu11ptr 5y ago
I think what I'm trying to say is that because absolute truth is so hard to determine, it is imperative that people have the ability to decide for themselves from the data what they believe to be true, even if it is "wrong" (because sometimes what is "wrong" turns out to be true in the end).
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  I'd go a step further and add that many "truths" are also conditionally dependent on time and the current state of the world. It used to be true that aluminum was more valuable than gold, now that is no longer the case.

Ansil849 5y ago

> "Experts" are just people with their own inherent biases. This is an absurd and false statement, and is a perfect summation of why so much mis/disinformation floats around and is so popular in today's online world. Experts do indeed have their own inherent biases. This part is a glib truism because experts are people, and all people have biases which both consciously and unconsciously influence their decision making. But that is not "just" what experts are. Experts are people who have, by definition, expertise in a given subject matter. Unless you too are an equal expert in a given topic, experts--once again by definition--know more than you do in that field. It doesn't mean you need to take what they say as gospel, so to speak, but it does mean that when the choice is to listen to 'random person on the internet' versus 'someone who has studied something for years and has made valued contributions to the field', the two-despite both having biases-are not on equal footing.

trident5000 5y ago
"Experts" are wrong all the time. I have doctor who didnt even order my mri with iodine last week, because hes a fool. He didnt even know that was an option. He also didnt know ultrasound to find an injury was an option. I know more than this doctor on ligament tears and how to treat them at this point and thats supposed to be his job. This is just one example but I find new ones every week where "experts" in all fields have no clue what they're doing. This obviously isnt to say all experts are not knowledgeable, but theres plenty who are not and often they are in charge. Thats why taking their opinion as ultimate truth without question is dangerous.
- Ansil849 5y ago
  Yes, there are people who are shitty at their jobs. Again, this is a glib truism. There are shitty doctors and programmers as much as there are shitty waiters and binmen. > Thats why taking their opinion as ultimate truth without question is dangerous. Agree. Which is why I explicitly stated: > It doesn't mean you need to take what they say as gospel, so to speak, but it does mean that when the choice is to listen to 'random person on the internet' versus 'someone who has studied something for years and has made valued contributions to the field', the two-despite both having biases-are not on equal footing. I'm sorry that it sounds like you have a shitty doctor. The solution is to find a better one, not to renounce doctors.

steelstraw 5y ago

It's the same as the Ministry of Truth. Orwellian and arrogant to the extreme and will always be abused by those in power. Who fact checks the fact checkers?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

kypro 5y ago

I honestly don't know how people navigate in society without this being plainly obvious to them. The number of people who believe most claims can be checked to any level of certainty is genuinely worrying and highlights a fundamental lack of critical thinking within our society, and therefore democratic process. As you say, most of the time these aren't "facts", but usually opinions or hypotheses based on a subject interruption of some data. The truth is even if 99% of the evidence we have today suggests masks work, this doesn't mean masks work, just that it's very likely they do assuming there isn't some bias in the research. The reason I mention bias is because it's simply true that in the past research on things like contentious subjects like climate change, smoking and various diets have been biased by corporate interest. I think the problem we have with misinformation today is less that people sometimes believe the wrong things, but they believe the wrong things with high levels of conviction and passion. The first step in the solution to misinformation in my opinion should be to promote an attitude similar to yours -- one of general scepticism and an openness to new information and beliefs.

systemvoltage 5y ago
There was a Stanford professor that argued that "We don't have high quality evidence for masks"[0]. Just asking for more studies to be done. Note the emphasis on "high quality". He was cancelled, fired and smeared by the university and the media. Here are some studies that probably need to be done more carefully because they conclude "Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection."[1]. So what's wrong with questioning and asking for more to be done? [0] https://thefederalist.com/2021/09/15/stanford-faculty-smear-professor-who-accurately-summarized-data-on-masks/ https://thefederalist.com/2021/09/15/stanford-faculty-smear-... [1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
- dfxm12 5y ago
  Who was fired by university? Certainly not the professor the article you quoted centers on, who, as of posting, is still employed by Stanford according to both Stanford: https://healthpolicy.fsi.stanford.edu/people/jay_bhattacharya https://healthpolicy.fsi.stanford.edu/people/jay_bhattachary... and his own linked in profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jbhattacharya https://www.linkedin.com/in/jbhattacharya Kinda ironic, given the topic.

awb 5y ago

> The truth, real truth, is EXTREMELY hard to ascertain It’s really challenging for me to speak in a way that’s unarguable. For example, instead of saying “COVID is now…”, saying “I read an article that says COVID is now…”. The first sentence is arguable, the second is unarguable because it’s my personal experience. How often do you read articles or reporting that state unarguable truths? Even a slight tweak from “COVID cases are spiking…” to “The NY Department of Health released data showing an X% increase in reported COVID cases statewide” makes a lot of difference in how I perceive the potential bias or truthiness of the content I’m reading.

dkn775 5y ago
Strongly agree. A lot of choices are made in the use of language. This happened a lot with the Jan 6th event. Some even proudly labeling it an insurrection when they made statements I noticed. It was like the language choice was used fearlessly. The Covid headlines as you mention are another huge one. Ive heard surge so many times and it’s been completely remade into an indication of a massive spike no matter the real context. Even if the cases really surging, I’ve always hated the use of words that take the ability away from the reader to tell for themselves what happened. A similar issue is in finding raw video of events, like rittenhouse shooting. So much of the results were subjectively selected clips w the news anchors speaking over it. I don’t want to be told what happened, I want the raw facts.

xtracto 5y ago

The truth... the real truth is sometimes even scientifically impossible to find, like it is parodied in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ua-WVg1SsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ua-WVg1SsA

tiahura 5y ago

I’m a bit older and concur. One issue driving it is the abandonment of personal responsibility for any aspect of our lives. Americans have it constantly drilled into them to expect authority figures to take the lead on providing our basic necessities, handling workplace disputes, obtaining medical care, etc., why should we be surprised that they’ve lost the ability to think for themselves?

HWR_14 5y ago

> "Experts" are just people with their own inherent biases. Experts are usually correct. I have no idea why you would think otherwise. Now, experts in one area often misapply that authority to others where they are not expert, but within their domain they are most often right. And I have yet to see that not be the case.

5etho 5y ago

I swear this is the worse comment I saw on HN, I'm going very political here: I'm not native english speaker, but calling fact checkers more damaging to society then: fox news, qanon, american nazism, evangelical believes, mormons, all christianity, school schootings, obama being war criminal for drone bombing iraqis, climate catastrphy and propping up islam regimes in saudi arabia etc, war on public transport by motor-lobby, end of democracy in us I could go for hours, I smell right wing bullshit from miles, or OP is autistic