4 ms·
I actually did directly refute your point: Better information does not dispel misinformation in public forums. I gave reasons why this is the case. Mind you,
by a4isms 4y ago
I actually did directly refute your point:
Better information does not dispel misinformation in public forums. I gave reasons why this is the case.
Mind you, better information can dispel misinformation in non-public forums. For example, in a highly moderated community. Or in a community where there is a certain web of trust that discourages cynical actors from deliberately trying to game popularity.
Now onto another problem with your statement: You claimed that better information beats misinformation, and you claimed that if it doesn't, the problem is that the information isn't better.
That's a claim that any idea which becomes popular must be better, because if there was better information, it would have dispelled the poorer ideas. Observing human history, I claim this is demonstrably false.
Billions of people believe things on faith that have no empirical backing, and do so despite access to an unprecedented amount of scientific evidence to the contrary.
Any theory that better information always wins should explain how non-trivial numbers of people can believe things for which there is no evidence or even wildly disseminated evidence to the contrary.
I think the onus is on you to give evidence for your claim, because I personally see evidence to the contrary.
- infamouscow 4y agoIn other words, we need elite gatekeepers of information because the dirty peasants can't be trusted to think the "right" way. How democratic.
- a4isms 4y agoSir/Madam: I said no such thing, you did. So AFAIC, you are arguing with yourself, not with me or my words. That, plus the fact that you are making claims without any arguments, examples, or reasoning to back up your claims, suggests that for all your talk of “better information,” you are actually disinterested in better information prevailing. Your own behaviour is doing a better job of illustrating my point than my words do! I will leave you here to carry on arguing with yourself.
- infamouscow 4y ago> Billions of people believe things on faith that have no empirical backing, and do so despite access to an unprecedented amount of scientific evidence to the contrary. We don't live in a technocracy. The crux of the matter is you don't get to decide what other people think or believe.
- a4isms 4y agoPlease do carry on spreading misinformation about what I think or advocate or believe. You’re doing a fine job of dancing with your own straw man. It seems that I called you out on making a claim you didn’t back up, and you are weaving some kind of conspiracy web around my motives and beliefs. That’s an ad hominem appeal to motive, and it’s just as terrible an argument as making a claim you decline to substantiate. For someone who claims that good information will drive out bad, you appear to have no interest in walking your talk. This thread has gone from tragedy to farce.