3 ms·

I don't know who this is written for. The people who value the notion of truth already defend it and the ones that don't are destroying it on purpose. Neither s

I don't know who this is written for. The people who value the notion of truth already defend it and the ones that don't are destroying it on purpose. Neither side will be swayed by this.

ForRealHere 4y ago
[flagged]
- throwayyy479087 4y ago
  This was written for you
- bee_rider 4y ago
  I don’t really understand why they decided to only provide right-wing talking points in their examples. If somebody wants to engage in this sort of performative pseudo-objectivity thing, they could at least throw in a couple reference to, like, embryonic stem cell research for example to as a head-fake. I mean, I’m pretty gullible, even a slight appearance of good faith engagement and I’ll check it out. But this is just too one sided. I guess the title was enough to get my click. I should look into the substack business model, not sure what metrics this kind of article targets.
- varnaud 4y ago
  The author seems like an enlightened high IQ centrist. >Science and medicine have come under attack, mainly from the left, by problematizing their epistemic foundations and achievements. In the past, attacks on science came principally from the right and this may happen again. I have a clear non-partisan standpoint and I am critical of both the right and the left. I am very much in line with the critics of SJI coming from the left (see: Neiman, 2023, forthcoming). I see both side, but the real problem right now is the bureaucratic intricacies of academia coming from "the left".
realce 4y ago
This is an apathetic and narrowly political opinion. It's written because the author was inspired to write it. You should evaluate it based on the content provided, not who you need to assume it's influential towards. Even then, how could you possibly know how many minds it could change? You're enforcing your cynicism and hoping others will follow your despair with no evidence to support it. Can't a cigar just be a cigar?
- joshspankit 4y ago
  > Can’t a cigar just be a cigar? Not in 2023, not really. We have all woken up to the fact that many people stand (and even more have stood) on the world stage pretending to be “simply stating” when the intent has been to push a narrative or give credibility to specific groups. I’m adding this rebuttal because it’s fresh in my mind: https://youtu.be/WBxAQYmPHDA https://youtu.be/WBxAQYmPHDA (starting 42:28). If you don’t like Neil try to listen to the point he’s making and separate it from him. It’s a point worth at least discussing critically: the intent of a statement is integral to the statement itself.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - realce 4y ago
    I simply don't agree. We have not "woken up" in some magical modern age to the notion of bias and intentional influence, that's the downfall of all human communication and a tale as old as time. To suggest it's been tricking us all along and we never knew is ridiculous. Factual information has the right to be stated, it's the audience's fault if they're not cogent enough to discern bias and malicious intent. Your position is a plain defense of censorship and forced interpretation of media, not one that promotes media literacy or individual sovereignty to make up one's mind.
    - joshspankit 4y ago
      Not woken up in terms of all of human history, certainly not. Woken up since the 80s? almost definitely. The difference now is the scale at which bias and intentional influence operate. For the record I’d much rather everyone be taught to think critically as a baseline but that’s simply not happening and to not call out bias or intentional influence is to be a bystander (something I choose not to do).

I don't know who this is written for. The people who value the notion of truth already defend it and the ones that don't are destroying it on purpose. Neither side will be swayed by this.

ForRealHere 4y ago

[flagged]

throwayyy479087 4y ago
This was written for you
bee_rider 4y ago
I don’t really understand why they decided to only provide right-wing talking points in their examples. If somebody wants to engage in this sort of performative pseudo-objectivity thing, they could at least throw in a couple reference to, like, embryonic stem cell research for example to as a head-fake. I mean, I’m pretty gullible, even a slight appearance of good faith engagement and I’ll check it out. But this is just too one sided. I guess the title was enough to get my click. I should look into the substack business model, not sure what metrics this kind of article targets.
varnaud 4y ago
The author seems like an enlightened high IQ centrist. >Science and medicine have come under attack, mainly from the left, by problematizing their epistemic foundations and achievements. In the past, attacks on science came principally from the right and this may happen again. I have a clear non-partisan standpoint and I am critical of both the right and the left. I am very much in line with the critics of SJI coming from the left (see: Neiman, 2023, forthcoming). I see both side, but the real problem right now is the bureaucratic intricacies of academia coming from "the left".

realce 4y ago

This is an apathetic and narrowly political opinion. It's written because the author was inspired to write it. You should evaluate it based on the content provided, not who you need to assume it's influential towards. Even then, how could you possibly know how many minds it could change? You're enforcing your cynicism and hoping others will follow your despair with no evidence to support it. Can't a cigar just be a cigar?

joshspankit 4y ago
> Can’t a cigar just be a cigar? Not in 2023, not really. We have all woken up to the fact that many people stand (and even more have stood) on the world stage pretending to be “simply stating” when the intent has been to push a narrative or give credibility to specific groups. I’m adding this rebuttal because it’s fresh in my mind: https://youtu.be/WBxAQYmPHDA https://youtu.be/WBxAQYmPHDA (starting 42:28). If you don’t like Neil try to listen to the point he’s making and separate it from him. It’s a point worth at least discussing critically: the intent of a statement is integral to the statement itself.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- realce 4y ago
  I simply don't agree. We have not "woken up" in some magical modern age to the notion of bias and intentional influence, that's the downfall of all human communication and a tale as old as time. To suggest it's been tricking us all along and we never knew is ridiculous. Factual information has the right to be stated, it's the audience's fault if they're not cogent enough to discern bias and malicious intent. Your position is a plain defense of censorship and forced interpretation of media, not one that promotes media literacy or individual sovereignty to make up one's mind.
  - joshspankit 4y ago
    Not woken up in terms of all of human history, certainly not. Woken up since the 80s? almost definitely. The difference now is the scale at which bias and intentional influence operate. For the record I’d much rather everyone be taught to think critically as a baseline but that’s simply not happening and to not call out bias or intentional influence is to be a bystander (something I choose not to do).