3 ms·

> Indeed. For example this discussion started when I actually said that journalists and police officers took Epstein Island seriously, in response to another co

> Indeed. For example this discussion started when I actually said that journalists and police officers took Epstein Island seriously, in response to another commenter suggesting people would have just dismissed Epstein Island as a conspiracy theory. Was yours a suggestion that that journalists and police officers took Epstein Island "seriously" (a highly ambiguous term, a perfect fit for current cultural norms), or was it more of a claim of fact? > There is a problem in human communication (or human-bot communication) when one party refuses to acknowledge that the seriousness of some policemen and journalists might be well-evidenced by the phenomenon of many newspaper reports detailing Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and prosecution... This ("one party refuses to acknowledge") implies that it is a fact that these articles are objectively ~"very well done" (could not have been substantially better, etc). > ...and instead of accepting or at least offering an alternative interpretation of the phenomenon[1]... My complaint is that humans perceive and represent opinions as facts. My proposal is that we stop doing this, or at least admit as individuals and a culture that this is how things currently work. What is actually true here is not known, hence I do not make an assertion of facts of what happened (with respect to the underlying crime). This approach is celebrated when done by science, but in other domains it seems to be considered the opposite of the correct way to behave. > ...rejects it on the basis they don't have "knowledge of all the activities of all those people"... Despite me addressing exactly this claim at least once already, you continue to misrepresent what I have actually said: I haven't rejected investigations as being necessarily false, but rather your claims that you possess knowledge (as opposed to belief) about the actions and quality of reporting. > ... and giggling to themselves about how normies' claims rely on omniscience. I don't find it funny, it scares the fuck out of me. > This problem is typically resolved by ceasing the communication. It stops the instance of the problem, but the underlying problem (people refusing to consider the importance of truth) does not go away.

notahacker 4y ago
> This ("one party refuses to acknowledge") implies that it is a fact that these articles are objectively ~"very well done" (could not have been substantially better, etc). But it doesn't. At no point has anybody at all claimed that articles are "objectively very well done", "could not have been substantially better" or anything remotely close to that. I did reject the idea that Epstein Island would have been [generally] "dismissed as a conspiracy theory" by pointing out that it has been treated with considerably more seriousness than that by many people generally unreceptive to conspiracy theorists, including journalists (and policemen, and courts, and ordinary normies like me). For someone that claims to be interested in philosophy of mind stuff around belief-formation and the importance of truth, you seem remarkably incapable of considering the possibility that your belief that I hold a belief which I never even hinted at (and in fact do not believe) constitutes an error of judgement rather than knowledge so sound you can reliably deduce delusions of omniscience[1] from it. If you are sincerely interested in the problem of "humans perceive and represent opinions as facts", I recommend rereading the thread and counting the number of statements you have made which are caveated as beliefs versus the number you have expressed as facts (in some cases explicitly dismissing the possibility of error). The total may surprise you, especially if haranguing others to couch their inferences as beliefs and opinions rather than statements is important to you. But if composing a reply is more satisfying than striving for self awareness or intellectual consistency, don't let me stop you. [1]a deduction which only makes sense if "omniscience" is a prerequisite for "sufficiently reliable faculties to gauge whether some news items contain elements of seriousness"". I guess if you believe intermediate-level English language comprehension is an unattainable state requiring omniscience, it would explain a lot about your last few posts...
- mistermann 4y ago
  > At no point has anybody at all claimed that articles are "objectively very well done", "could not have been substantially better" or anything remotely close to that. Let's try an experiment - can we at least agree that: a) there does exist a level of quality element to journalism ("reporting" on a topic is not, comprehensively, a True/False binary)? b) both of us have expressed at least some sort of opinion on the quality of reporting with regards to the Epstein affair? > I did reject the idea that Epstein Island would have been [generally] "dismissed as a conspiracy theory" by pointing out that it has been treated with considerably more seriousness than that by many people generally unreceptive to conspiracy theorists, including journalists (and policemen, and courts, and ordinary normies like me). Can we agree that: a) It is physically possible that at least one journalism piece might have at least implied that stories about the Epstein affair are conspiracy theories (and thus not true)? b) It may have actually occurred that at least one journalism piece actually did imply that (at least some) stories about the Epstein affair are conspiracy theories (and thus not true)? > For someone that claims to be interested in philosophy of mind stuff around belief-formation and the importance of truth, you seem remarkably incapable of considering the possibility that your belief that I hold a belief which I never even hinted at (and in fact do not believe) constitutes an error of judgement rather than knowledge so sound you can reliably deduce delusions of omniscience[1] from it. If you are sincerely interested in the problem of "humans perceive and represent opinions as facts", I recommend rereading the thread and counting the number of statements you have made which are caveated as beliefs versus the number you have expressed as facts (in some cases explicitly dismissing the possibility of error). A serious problem here is that I would be reviewing my own comments in a biased manner. How about this: would you be willing to identity 2 or 3 examples of where you believe I have done this, including a link to the comment, a quote of the offending text, and your explanation of how the text demonstrates your claim? I prefer this approach because I believe providing specific evidence for one's claims is a very useful function is the practice of epistemology, and it can also give some signals as to the likelihood that the person making the claim is speaking truthfully, accurately, and in good faith (something that should be a consideration of all people involved in a conversation, including me). I have quoted and disputed numerous of your specific claims, I would enjoy for you to do the same to mine. If I have made genuinely (or even plausibly) erroneous claims, I would very much like you to draw my attention to them. > But if composing a reply is more satisfying than striving for self awareness or intellectual consistency, don't let me stop you. I read this as an assertion that I am not acting in good faith or living up to what I ask of you, and I believe that encouraging you to expose this behavior in me using evidence is a good way to demonstrate that what you say is true, rather than leaving it up to the imagination of the reader. > [1]a deduction which only makes sense if "omniscience" is a prerequisite for "sufficiently reliable faculties to gauge whether some news items contain elements of seriousness"". The problem here is "some news item" - we have not been discussing one single news item - my complaint is that you made claims about the entirety of the journalism complex. > I guess if you believe intermediate-level English language comprehension is an unattainable state requiring omniscience, it would explain a lot about your last few posts... If you genuinely believe I've made this claim (or something resembling it), I encourage you to present evidence so as to demonstrate my untruthfulness.

notahacker 4y ago

> This ("one party refuses to acknowledge") implies that it is a fact that these articles are objectively ~"very well done" (could not have been substantially better, etc). But it doesn't. At no point has anybody at all claimed that articles are "objectively very well done", "could not have been substantially better" or anything remotely close to that. I did reject the idea that Epstein Island would have been [generally] "dismissed as a conspiracy theory" by pointing out that it has been treated with considerably more seriousness than that by many people generally unreceptive to conspiracy theorists, including journalists (and policemen, and courts, and ordinary normies like me). For someone that claims to be interested in philosophy of mind stuff around belief-formation and the importance of truth, you seem remarkably incapable of considering the possibility that your belief that I hold a belief which I never even hinted at (and in fact do not believe) constitutes an error of judgement rather than knowledge so sound you can reliably deduce delusions of omniscience[1] from it. If you are sincerely interested in the problem of "humans perceive and represent opinions as facts", I recommend rereading the thread and counting the number of statements you have made which are caveated as beliefs versus the number you have expressed as facts (in some cases explicitly dismissing the possibility of error). The total may surprise you, especially if haranguing others to couch their inferences as beliefs and opinions rather than statements is important to you. But if composing a reply is more satisfying than striving for self awareness or intellectual consistency, don't let me stop you. [1]a deduction which only makes sense if "omniscience" is a prerequisite for "sufficiently reliable faculties to gauge whether some news items contain elements of seriousness"". I guess if you believe intermediate-level English language comprehension is an unattainable state requiring omniscience, it would explain a lot about your last few posts...

mistermann 4y ago
> At no point has anybody at all claimed that articles are "objectively very well done", "could not have been substantially better" or anything remotely close to that. Let's try an experiment - can we at least agree that: a) there does exist a level of quality element to journalism ("reporting" on a topic is not, comprehensively, a True/False binary)? b) both of us have expressed at least some sort of opinion on the quality of reporting with regards to the Epstein affair? > I did reject the idea that Epstein Island would have been [generally] "dismissed as a conspiracy theory" by pointing out that it has been treated with considerably more seriousness than that by many people generally unreceptive to conspiracy theorists, including journalists (and policemen, and courts, and ordinary normies like me). Can we agree that: a) It is physically possible that at least one journalism piece might have at least implied that stories about the Epstein affair are conspiracy theories (and thus not true)? b) It may have actually occurred that at least one journalism piece actually did imply that (at least some) stories about the Epstein affair are conspiracy theories (and thus not true)? > For someone that claims to be interested in philosophy of mind stuff around belief-formation and the importance of truth, you seem remarkably incapable of considering the possibility that your belief that I hold a belief which I never even hinted at (and in fact do not believe) constitutes an error of judgement rather than knowledge so sound you can reliably deduce delusions of omniscience[1] from it. If you are sincerely interested in the problem of "humans perceive and represent opinions as facts", I recommend rereading the thread and counting the number of statements you have made which are caveated as beliefs versus the number you have expressed as facts (in some cases explicitly dismissing the possibility of error). A serious problem here is that I would be reviewing my own comments in a biased manner. How about this: would you be willing to identity 2 or 3 examples of where you believe I have done this, including a link to the comment, a quote of the offending text, and your explanation of how the text demonstrates your claim? I prefer this approach because I believe providing specific evidence for one's claims is a very useful function is the practice of epistemology, and it can also give some signals as to the likelihood that the person making the claim is speaking truthfully, accurately, and in good faith (something that should be a consideration of all people involved in a conversation, including me). I have quoted and disputed numerous of your specific claims, I would enjoy for you to do the same to mine. If I have made genuinely (or even plausibly) erroneous claims, I would very much like you to draw my attention to them. > But if composing a reply is more satisfying than striving for self awareness or intellectual consistency, don't let me stop you. I read this as an assertion that I am not acting in good faith or living up to what I ask of you, and I believe that encouraging you to expose this behavior in me using evidence is a good way to demonstrate that what you say is true, rather than leaving it up to the imagination of the reader. > [1]a deduction which only makes sense if "omniscience" is a prerequisite for "sufficiently reliable faculties to gauge whether some news items contain elements of seriousness"". The problem here is "some news item" - we have not been discussing one single news item - my complaint is that you made claims about the entirety of the journalism complex. > I guess if you believe intermediate-level English language comprehension is an unattainable state requiring omniscience, it would explain a lot about your last few posts... If you genuinely believe I've made this claim (or something resembling it), I encourage you to present evidence so as to demonstrate my untruthfulness.