21 ms·

IT'S A TRAP! Seriously. I love the intent here. But in my view the whole premise is epistemologically wrong. (A word I'm almost educated enough to use.) Truth

IT'S A TRAP! Seriously. I love the intent here. But in my view the whole premise is epistemologically wrong. (A word I'm almost educated enough to use.) Truth by consensus is logical but not the point to which we have evolved. Here it seems like a retreat from our capacity into a pragmatic defensive stance. This is all we can manage. This is essentially the Overton Window. Truth as managed by mainstream sensibility. And the mainstream is primarily a point of view that does not question our industrial imperialism. Things that subtract a lot from growth are not included. And there is the potential disaster. Large parts of our history do not match our mainstream perception of national character at all. In fact, the mainstream view is one of intentional avoidance of facts. Dissent has never been mainstream. The forces of social change are not supported by the majority. Example: The Overton Window does not include Chris Hedges. In fact, it doesn't really include any of the real investigative journalists or honest historians of our time. The most curious and informed people we should be promoting are too subversive to be mainstream. And so they will not be included in a truth consensus. What then is that 'consensus' if it's too shallow to feature its experts? Something like that. Sunday morning shouting into the void.

hayst4ck 4y ago
I think the overton window plays a part and it's certainly an interesting window to look at the problem of misinformation thorough, but I think that we are seeing something that's even more painful to think about. We are seeing where people believe authority is derived from. The author makes a mistake by projecting their world view onto others. The author believes authority can be derived via consensus, I do too, but the people who spread "misinformation" believe authority is derived via might (by their king, whether it is Putin, Xi, or otherwise), or via god (as interpreted by their religious leaders). If I believe authority is derived from academics, how am I supposed to share a world view with someone who believes authority is derived from their pastor? If there is a policy that is directly derived from these differences in beliefs about authority (global warming, evolution, abortion, election integrity, education indoctrination policy), how can consensus be reached? Thus what we are seeing as misinformation is a much much deeper problem. Misinformation is the manifestation of fundamentally incompatible axioms about the world and how information is determined to be true. The true danger is where this line of thought leads, because if two people have irreconcilable, incompatible views of the world they must choose to live in a cold war, or annihilate the other. That is why genocide happens. That is why Russia is trying to erase Ukraine and China is trying to erase Uighers.
- curtainsforus 4y ago
  I find modern atheist people's investiture of authority in academics confusing. Did we go to the same university system? My professors certainly spent more time reading about the subjects they specialized in than the average person, but they weren't necessarily incentivized to believe true things about their fields. A professor in a certain type of engineering, getting grant money by claiming it might be useful for e.g. future computing hardware, has an incentive to keep claiming so in order to get future grants. I think I'd trust a pastor's word on their area of nominal expertise (life advice, christianity) about as much as a given professor's word about their area of specialization. (This doesn't apply to a pastor of one of those super-churches, for example; they're obvious scum. I wonder if there's an analogue in academia?)
  - hayst4ck 4y ago
    I went to a highly ranked university. Many of my professors played key roles in their fields and wrote the textbooks used by multiple colleges. Academics is a proxy for merit and ideas supported via scientific method. Hypothesize -> experiment -> measure -> conclude is an intellectually satisfying cycle that lends to the idea of convincing yourself if you don't believe. It's clear there are academic bad actors just as there are bad actors in any system of authority, but I think the incentives are much less perverse. Academia has a significant focus on peer review. Academia is a hierarchy itself, so when someone says "I trust academia," they are not referring to "just any professor in the field" but the methods that lead to information used in textbooks written by various experts in various fields used in top universities. Tithing alone creates a situation where any pastor is extremely aligned with doing anything at all to prevent questioning of god, including using social pressure. Social leverage (we'll take away your friends if you don't do what we say) has absolutely been used by many different churches. There are entire communities from people who have come from abusive church systems like LDS after having lost their social connections. I have direct personal stories of multiple people in my life directly harmed by their [parents] churches because it's more important to be a part of the church than to maintain a relationship with your child. It's not hard to look at the teachings of Jesus, which are respectable (love thy neighbor, feed the poor, etc), and look how aptly those who claim to be most religious took those lessons. Nobody who is christian in values (believes in Jesus lessons rather than the abstract idea of Jesus) would vote for Trump and yet I don't think it is a stretch to say zealous Christians preferred Trump. When I grew up in the church, they said it was time to stand in front of the congregation and confirm your baptism and say that you believe in god. I wasn't convinced, and so the pastor told me I was going to be doomed to a life of crime if I didn't get confirmed. "Don't bear false witness" but do stand in front of the church and directly lie about your beliefs. Immediate contradiction, immediately obvious that the church is not primarily concerned with truth. I might not know what's true, but I know for sure contradictions are false. I don't think it makes sense to trust a pastor who depends on your relationship with the church for their paycheck with life advice over someone who has studied the causes/treatments for divorce, depression, or anything else. There are many stories of pastors trying to keep people who should divorce together for the sake of the church. Pastors probably have more experience than the average person, but probably don't have better outcomes than those derived via research and I certainly wouldn't trust them to write federal legal policy. I definitely believe there are probably many pastors who are much better than many other mental health professionals, and are probably much more accessible both mentally and monetarily, so pastors probably have a net positive effect in this area. It wouldn't even surprise me if seminary school were to directly teach many topics academically or use academic methods and authority, but it's still done in the context of tithing and one truth (god exists) that is beyond critical examination, the yes is presupposed. Just to be clear, I think there are churches that improve the world and many offer things that are otherwise missing in [american] society like a sense of community. I spent a lot of time traveling and many countries do not have a semblance of "the golden rule," which results in a low trust society. I highly suspect Christianity is a major driver of teaching the golden rule in America. > This doesn't apply to a pastor of one of those super-churches And that is the crux of the issue. You can't put yourself in a member of their congregations shoes and apply the same line of thought to them. That person is in their congregation so they probably trust that church with life advice and christian authority. The megachurch person is to you, as you are to me.

hayst4ck 4y ago

I think the overton window plays a part and it's certainly an interesting window to look at the problem of misinformation thorough, but I think that we are seeing something that's even more painful to think about. We are seeing where people believe authority is derived from. The author makes a mistake by projecting their world view onto others. The author believes authority can be derived via consensus, I do too, but the people who spread "misinformation" believe authority is derived via might (by their king, whether it is Putin, Xi, or otherwise), or via god (as interpreted by their religious leaders). If I believe authority is derived from academics, how am I supposed to share a world view with someone who believes authority is derived from their pastor? If there is a policy that is directly derived from these differences in beliefs about authority (global warming, evolution, abortion, election integrity, education indoctrination policy), how can consensus be reached? Thus what we are seeing as misinformation is a much much deeper problem. Misinformation is the manifestation of fundamentally incompatible axioms about the world and how information is determined to be true. The true danger is where this line of thought leads, because if two people have irreconcilable, incompatible views of the world they must choose to live in a cold war, or annihilate the other. That is why genocide happens. That is why Russia is trying to erase Ukraine and China is trying to erase Uighers.

curtainsforus 4y ago
I find modern atheist people's investiture of authority in academics confusing. Did we go to the same university system? My professors certainly spent more time reading about the subjects they specialized in than the average person, but they weren't necessarily incentivized to believe true things about their fields. A professor in a certain type of engineering, getting grant money by claiming it might be useful for e.g. future computing hardware, has an incentive to keep claiming so in order to get future grants. I think I'd trust a pastor's word on their area of nominal expertise (life advice, christianity) about as much as a given professor's word about their area of specialization. (This doesn't apply to a pastor of one of those super-churches, for example; they're obvious scum. I wonder if there's an analogue in academia?)
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  I went to a highly ranked university. Many of my professors played key roles in their fields and wrote the textbooks used by multiple colleges. Academics is a proxy for merit and ideas supported via scientific method. Hypothesize -> experiment -> measure -> conclude is an intellectually satisfying cycle that lends to the idea of convincing yourself if you don't believe. It's clear there are academic bad actors just as there are bad actors in any system of authority, but I think the incentives are much less perverse. Academia has a significant focus on peer review. Academia is a hierarchy itself, so when someone says "I trust academia," they are not referring to "just any professor in the field" but the methods that lead to information used in textbooks written by various experts in various fields used in top universities. Tithing alone creates a situation where any pastor is extremely aligned with doing anything at all to prevent questioning of god, including using social pressure. Social leverage (we'll take away your friends if you don't do what we say) has absolutely been used by many different churches. There are entire communities from people who have come from abusive church systems like LDS after having lost their social connections. I have direct personal stories of multiple people in my life directly harmed by their [parents] churches because it's more important to be a part of the church than to maintain a relationship with your child. It's not hard to look at the teachings of Jesus, which are respectable (love thy neighbor, feed the poor, etc), and look how aptly those who claim to be most religious took those lessons. Nobody who is christian in values (believes in Jesus lessons rather than the abstract idea of Jesus) would vote for Trump and yet I don't think it is a stretch to say zealous Christians preferred Trump. When I grew up in the church, they said it was time to stand in front of the congregation and confirm your baptism and say that you believe in god. I wasn't convinced, and so the pastor told me I was going to be doomed to a life of crime if I didn't get confirmed. "Don't bear false witness" but do stand in front of the church and directly lie about your beliefs. Immediate contradiction, immediately obvious that the church is not primarily concerned with truth. I might not know what's true, but I know for sure contradictions are false. I don't think it makes sense to trust a pastor who depends on your relationship with the church for their paycheck with life advice over someone who has studied the causes/treatments for divorce, depression, or anything else. There are many stories of pastors trying to keep people who should divorce together for the sake of the church. Pastors probably have more experience than the average person, but probably don't have better outcomes than those derived via research and I certainly wouldn't trust them to write federal legal policy. I definitely believe there are probably many pastors who are much better than many other mental health professionals, and are probably much more accessible both mentally and monetarily, so pastors probably have a net positive effect in this area. It wouldn't even surprise me if seminary school were to directly teach many topics academically or use academic methods and authority, but it's still done in the context of tithing and one truth (god exists) that is beyond critical examination, the yes is presupposed. Just to be clear, I think there are churches that improve the world and many offer things that are otherwise missing in [american] society like a sense of community. I spent a lot of time traveling and many countries do not have a semblance of "the golden rule," which results in a low trust society. I highly suspect Christianity is a major driver of teaching the golden rule in America. > This doesn't apply to a pastor of one of those super-churches And that is the crux of the issue. You can't put yourself in a member of their congregations shoes and apply the same line of thought to them. That person is in their congregation so they probably trust that church with life advice and christian authority. The megachurch person is to you, as you are to me.