4 ms·

To Fight Misinformation, We Need to Teach That Science Is Dynamic

easytiger 4y ago
Given some of the authors and their obviously-wrong-at-the-time claims during covid this could be considered a way to apologise for being overcome by pseudoscience. Or more likely a way to fortify their pseudo science predicated authoritarianism
hunglee2 4y ago
We should know by now that this is not primarily a technology problem - anyone who has ever had a dispute online will know that the provision of verifiable proofs is insufficient in persuading the other party. Our collective challenge is that social communications has democratised the production, distribution and amplification of information - information which, if packaged into a plausible enough narrative - might gain popularity and even consensus, irrespective of the truthfulness of those claims. We now participate in an the information universe which is a grand battlefield of narratives, each one competing for consensus, with trolling, brigading, cancelling being the teeth and claws of this deadly battle. Default skepticism of all narratives might be our only protection, skant though that surely is
- incomingpain 4y ago
  >anyone who has ever had a dispute online will know that the provision of verifiable proofs is insufficient in persuading the other party. You can NEVER win an argument. Feel free to engage in your battlefield but you can only lose if you are there to argue. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. "If you argue and rankle and contradict, you may achieve a victory sometimes; but it will be an empty victory because you will never get your opponent's good will." - Ben Franklin >We now participate in an the information universe which is a grand battlefield of narratives, each one competing for consensus, with trolling, brigading, cancelling being the teeth and claws of this deadly battle. There is no battlefield. There is only a grand classroom of people. Each one wanting to understand. The world is far too complex to understand everything at a quality level let alone an expert level. If you approach a debate as a teacher, you will not lose because you avoided the fight. The problem with 'truth' or 'misinformation' is you can never win by labeling your opponents in the grand classroom as false. The utter point of politics is effectively subject matters that are not necessarily a true or false thing. So when you do that, you have not convinced them against their will, they will be same opinion. This is the failing that is reddit and other social media. Everyone sees it as a grand battleground where we must crush our opponents into submission. 0% change of success.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    Winning on social media is a hollow activity, with no chance of success and nothing of value to be won even if you did. However, there is a battlefield: the voting booth. People who believe misinformation vote, and the social contract requires us to live with the consequences of that vote. Some misinformation results in choices that harm people. The whole idea is that we're supposed to discuss it before we vote, and social media would have seemed an ideal place to hold that discussion. Instead, we spend a lot of it fighting over things that are straightforward enough that it should be easy to achieve widespread consensus. Democracy doesn't require or even desire unanimity, but it expects an agreement about things that are fairly obvious. Without that, the entire edifice of democracy breaks down. The battlefield of social media is not directly relevant, but the battlefield of the polling place is. It's clear that any kind of frontal assault on misinformation is an unwinnable fight, but my confidence is low that we can achieve even a stable state that prevents national policy from being formed on the basis of simple errors.
    - incomingpain 4y ago
      >Winning on social media is a hollow activity, with no chance of success and nothing of value to be won even if you did. When you're there not for the fight or argument. It is extremely valuable. The problem is... they don't allow you to discuss it. They wish to control the narrative and intentionally disallow discussion. >However, there is a battlefield: the voting booth. I certainly hope you are not considering this in a literal sense. >People who believe misinformation vote, and the social contract requires us to live with the consequences of that vote. Some misinformation results in choices that harm people. The difference between misinformation and fact seems to be 6 months. >The whole idea is that we're supposed to discuss it before we vote, and social media would have seemed an ideal place to hold that discussion. Instead, we spend a lot of it fighting over things that are straightforward enough that it should be easy to achieve widespread consensus. Democracy doesn't require or even desire unanimity, but it expects an agreement about things that are fairly obvious. Social media when it allowed the discussion was an ideal place. The problem is that political activists abused the platforms and took control. The discussion is happening now, it took time for the republicans to figure out their mistake.

Given some of the authors and their obviously-wrong-at-the-time claims during covid this could be considered a way to apologise for being overcome by pseudoscience. Or more likely a way to fortify their pseudo science predicated authoritarianism

hunglee2 4y ago

We should know by now that this is not primarily a technology problem - anyone who has ever had a dispute online will know that the provision of verifiable proofs is insufficient in persuading the other party. Our collective challenge is that social communications has democratised the production, distribution and amplification of information - information which, if packaged into a plausible enough narrative - might gain popularity and even consensus, irrespective of the truthfulness of those claims. We now participate in an the information universe which is a grand battlefield of narratives, each one competing for consensus, with trolling, brigading, cancelling being the teeth and claws of this deadly battle. Default skepticism of all narratives might be our only protection, skant though that surely is

incomingpain 4y ago
>anyone who has ever had a dispute online will know that the provision of verifiable proofs is insufficient in persuading the other party. You can NEVER win an argument. Feel free to engage in your battlefield but you can only lose if you are there to argue. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. "If you argue and rankle and contradict, you may achieve a victory sometimes; but it will be an empty victory because you will never get your opponent's good will." - Ben Franklin >We now participate in an the information universe which is a grand battlefield of narratives, each one competing for consensus, with trolling, brigading, cancelling being the teeth and claws of this deadly battle. There is no battlefield. There is only a grand classroom of people. Each one wanting to understand. The world is far too complex to understand everything at a quality level let alone an expert level. If you approach a debate as a teacher, you will not lose because you avoided the fight. The problem with 'truth' or 'misinformation' is you can never win by labeling your opponents in the grand classroom as false. The utter point of politics is effectively subject matters that are not necessarily a true or false thing. So when you do that, you have not convinced them against their will, they will be same opinion. This is the failing that is reddit and other social media. Everyone sees it as a grand battleground where we must crush our opponents into submission. 0% change of success.
- jfengel 4y ago
  Winning on social media is a hollow activity, with no chance of success and nothing of value to be won even if you did. However, there is a battlefield: the voting booth. People who believe misinformation vote, and the social contract requires us to live with the consequences of that vote. Some misinformation results in choices that harm people. The whole idea is that we're supposed to discuss it before we vote, and social media would have seemed an ideal place to hold that discussion. Instead, we spend a lot of it fighting over things that are straightforward enough that it should be easy to achieve widespread consensus. Democracy doesn't require or even desire unanimity, but it expects an agreement about things that are fairly obvious. Without that, the entire edifice of democracy breaks down. The battlefield of social media is not directly relevant, but the battlefield of the polling place is. It's clear that any kind of frontal assault on misinformation is an unwinnable fight, but my confidence is low that we can achieve even a stable state that prevents national policy from being formed on the basis of simple errors.
  - incomingpain 4y ago
    >Winning on social media is a hollow activity, with no chance of success and nothing of value to be won even if you did. When you're there not for the fight or argument. It is extremely valuable. The problem is... they don't allow you to discuss it. They wish to control the narrative and intentionally disallow discussion. >However, there is a battlefield: the voting booth. I certainly hope you are not considering this in a literal sense. >People who believe misinformation vote, and the social contract requires us to live with the consequences of that vote. Some misinformation results in choices that harm people. The difference between misinformation and fact seems to be 6 months. >The whole idea is that we're supposed to discuss it before we vote, and social media would have seemed an ideal place to hold that discussion. Instead, we spend a lot of it fighting over things that are straightforward enough that it should be easy to achieve widespread consensus. Democracy doesn't require or even desire unanimity, but it expects an agreement about things that are fairly obvious. Social media when it allowed the discussion was an ideal place. The problem is that political activists abused the platforms and took control. The discussion is happening now, it took time for the republicans to figure out their mistake.