3 ms·

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 someti

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.

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.