5 ms·

But we have to be aware of weaponized questioning, such as with the tobacco companies

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
torstenvl 5y ago
No. The motives of people posing questions isn't relevant. The only thing that matters is the inherent quality of the questioning itself.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Really? So continually asking for more information in the face of overwhelming evidence just to protect the profit of the company you work for is okay?
  - errantmind 5y ago
    Ultimately people have to choose for themselves who to believe. I personally like to include implied incentives in my evaluations, as incentives tend to be dominant predictors of future behavior, as well as explain motive. Using a term like 'weaponized questioning' sounds a lot like Newspeak.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    Yes, really. Everyone has biases. The only way to prevent those biases from infecting science is to ensure we aren't assuming them a priori. That means you can't discriminate based on where the question is coming from. In your example of "overwhelming evidence," how many things have there been overwhelming evidence for that are just plain wrong? The speed of light as a constant? Newtonian physics? And so you can see that the idea something has "overwhelming evidence" is itself a bias. If questioning things for which there was "overwhelming evidence" wasn't "okay," then Einstein would have been shunned or locked up. A world where it isn't "okay" to question anything and everything is not a world worth living in.
    - netizen-936824 5y ago
      I agree with all of your points, but how does this system handle bad faith actors purposely muddying the waters? This is behavior that humans do exhibit sometimes, so I don't think we can pretend everyone is always acting in good faith.
      - torstenvl 5y ago
        You're right, there are always bad faith actors, and it is an issue. But I don't think railing against them or trying to prevent it is going to do anything productive. I think acting as though every question is a good faith question is the better strategy. Here's why: (1) "Don't ever wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it." If they're truly acting in bad faith then they aren't looking to elevate the discussion. Debasing the discussion into ad hominems only serves their purpose. Taking the example from earlier, if Big Tobacco really doesn't have any doubts about the science, then they know there's blood on their hands. In that case, wouldn't they prefer to make this a mudslinging match rather than a compelling and objective fact-based indictment of their behavior? (2) Holding the moral high ground is important. I see remarkable parallels between Islamic fundamentalist insurgency in Iraq and the nihilist post-truth insurgency in Western domestic politics. In both cases, it's imperative that the good guys maintain the moral high ground and win hearts and minds. Taking an anti-science position in defense of science is a serious gamble when looking through that lens. Just look at how Dr. Fauci has wasted his credibility, for example, lying about the effectiveness of masks to manipulate supply and demand, or lying about GOF research. While his goals (ensuring N95s are available for front line medical workers, dispelling conspiracy theories about NIH creating COVID-19) were admirable, he seriously undermined his principles, and his credibility is shot with a sizable portion of the American public. His foibles should be a cautionary tale. (3) I can't cite anything pithy to summarize this and I'm not articulate enough to put into words my takeaways, but I highly recommend Bruce Schneier's Liars And Outliers, about effective ways to address issues of security, trust, and defection from the social contract.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

No. The motives of people posing questions isn't relevant. The only thing that matters is the inherent quality of the questioning itself.

netizen-936824 5y ago
Really? So continually asking for more information in the face of overwhelming evidence just to protect the profit of the company you work for is okay?
- errantmind 5y ago
  Ultimately people have to choose for themselves who to believe. I personally like to include implied incentives in my evaluations, as incentives tend to be dominant predictors of future behavior, as well as explain motive. Using a term like 'weaponized questioning' sounds a lot like Newspeak.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  Yes, really. Everyone has biases. The only way to prevent those biases from infecting science is to ensure we aren't assuming them a priori. That means you can't discriminate based on where the question is coming from. In your example of "overwhelming evidence," how many things have there been overwhelming evidence for that are just plain wrong? The speed of light as a constant? Newtonian physics? And so you can see that the idea something has "overwhelming evidence" is itself a bias. If questioning things for which there was "overwhelming evidence" wasn't "okay," then Einstein would have been shunned or locked up. A world where it isn't "okay" to question anything and everything is not a world worth living in.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    I agree with all of your points, but how does this system handle bad faith actors purposely muddying the waters? This is behavior that humans do exhibit sometimes, so I don't think we can pretend everyone is always acting in good faith.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      You're right, there are always bad faith actors, and it is an issue. But I don't think railing against them or trying to prevent it is going to do anything productive. I think acting as though every question is a good faith question is the better strategy. Here's why: (1) "Don't ever wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it." If they're truly acting in bad faith then they aren't looking to elevate the discussion. Debasing the discussion into ad hominems only serves their purpose. Taking the example from earlier, if Big Tobacco really doesn't have any doubts about the science, then they know there's blood on their hands. In that case, wouldn't they prefer to make this a mudslinging match rather than a compelling and objective fact-based indictment of their behavior? (2) Holding the moral high ground is important. I see remarkable parallels between Islamic fundamentalist insurgency in Iraq and the nihilist post-truth insurgency in Western domestic politics. In both cases, it's imperative that the good guys maintain the moral high ground and win hearts and minds. Taking an anti-science position in defense of science is a serious gamble when looking through that lens. Just look at how Dr. Fauci has wasted his credibility, for example, lying about the effectiveness of masks to manipulate supply and demand, or lying about GOF research. While his goals (ensuring N95s are available for front line medical workers, dispelling conspiracy theories about NIH creating COVID-19) were admirable, he seriously undermined his principles, and his credibility is shot with a sizable portion of the American public. His foibles should be a cautionary tale. (3) I can't cite anything pithy to summarize this and I'm not articulate enough to put into words my takeaways, but I highly recommend Bruce Schneier's Liars And Outliers, about effective ways to address issues of security, trust, and defection from the social contract.