6 ms·

Post-truth is the greatest step toward truth in human history. For centuries the clergy, government, media, and corporations have owned the Truth and defined th

Post-truth is the greatest step toward truth in human history. For centuries the clergy, government, media, and corporations have owned the Truth and defined the Overton window. Post-truth’s overwhelming flood of true, false, and irrelevant claims is empowering critical thinking. It’s offering freedom. The printing press led to the renaissance. The internet is now leading a new one. There will continue to be protests by the establishment powers, and unfortunately there will likely be conflict. The fall of monarchies was not without bloodshed. Hopefully we can find a way to achieve similar progress this time around without the same loss of life.

vel0city 3y ago
I feel this Renaissance is going to lead us right off a cliff though. Just yesterday I heard a friend say they're not giving their kids any vaccines at all, they trust moms on Tik Tok more than pediatricians and other doctors. Another friend almost lost their child from an easily correctable condition because of wanting to have their child at home because you just can't trust doctors and clinics. But where did they go when their child was delivered and was struggling to breathe? The hospital to those doctors they refused to be around originally. I've had people with multiple degrees tell me with a straight face eating microwaved foods is eating radiation that will cause cancer.
- ttoinou 3y ago
  A lot of doctors are stupid and a lot of TikTok moms are smart
  - macintux 3y ago
    True but irrelevant. A stupid doctor still has years of training, resources to assist, and access to smarter doctors. A TikTok mom will (typically) have anecdata at best.
    - acyou 3y ago
      Doctors are specifically selected and trained to act and think according to clinical guidelines and published best practice. Critical and holistic thinking is discouraged, you can't have both. Are the above commenters saying Tiktokers are stupid, or moms are stupid, or that the combo is stupid? Moms kept the human race going strong for all of history. Have doctors accomplished that much in comparison, that they should be held in higher regard in society than mothers?
      - vel0city 3y ago
        > Are the above commenters saying Tiktokers are stupid, or moms are stupid, or that the combo is stupid? I'm arguing you shouldn't hire a plumber when you're needing to fix a car, you shouldn't hire a limo driver to fly a jet airliner, you shouldn't trust a chef for what kind fertilizer you should use on your plants. I'm not arguing all Tik Tokers are stupid. I'm not arguing all moms are stupid. I am arguing maybe they're not the best place to base your trust on efficacy of vaccines. Maybe the best place to get feedback on what kinds of toys seem to hold kids attention or strategies on getting your kids to eat vegetables, but probably not the best person to ask how to get a satellite into orbit. A big problem is people end up building trust around these personalities and start trusting their input on topics they've got no real experience in other than maybe some personal ancedotes. And I totally agree, someone can absolutely still be an idiot even with letters at the end of their name. One shouldn't just trust the messenger entirely, it should really only be a starting signal to help the signal to noise ratio.
  - itishappy 3y ago
    Stupid people are unavoidable, that's why accountability is important. Stupid doctors don't stay doctors. Stupid mothers remain mothers for life.
- guntherhermann 3y ago
  But these people all existed 10, 20, 30 years ago, they have existed and will continue to exist throughout humanity. You cannot fix stupid. What is the solution, to control 'The Message'? I agree with the parent. I grew up on the 90s internet, where you didn't believe anything on it! Somewhere along the lines this changed (I blame 2007 -- the iPhone / huge numbers of people going online during this period), and that is the problem. If we have an issue, it's that people take information on the internet as gospel, hopefully if there's so much absolute dogshit on it, it will make people skeptical again.
  - vel0city 3y ago
    I fully agree they've existed since the dawn of communication. It's different now that it's near free and available to broadcast that idiocy to a billion people in an instant. I'm not arguing the government should step in and massively regulate speech. I'm just saying I'm not exactly excited for where we're going on this ride. I think it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      > It's different now that it's near free and available to broadcast that idiocy to a billion people in an instant. This doesn't matter, truth needs to travel but bullshit can be made up on the spot. Internet is way more beneficial for the truth, I talked to people before they used the internet and it was bullshit all over back then as well but there was no truth around to contradict them so maybe it wasn't as obvious. But today you can easily find out thanks to the internet.
      - vel0city 3y ago
        If it's irrelevant why does it seem there's far more flat earthers and anti-vaccine people today than 40 years ago? I do agree there are positives to the truth being more accessible. I don't need to go to the library or pay massive fees to access peer reviewed articles these days. I can collaborate with peers all over the world to search for the truth. This doesn't help when most of the popular web is actively pushing up falsehoods instead of the truth. And that's happening on a scale that's never before been possible.
TimTheTinker 3y ago
> Post-truth’s overwhelming flood of true, false, and irrelevant claims is empowering critical thinking. It’s offering freedom. By and large, critical thinking hasn't been taught effectively in public schools for at least 10 years now. Even when it was, only a fraction of the public were able to think independently and logically in such a way as to eliminate spurious data/voices and deduce the truth accurately. Far from empowering critical thinking, this lack of truth is creating a powerful vacuum that can easily be filled by propaganda and harmful ideology. No wonder the US's adversaries are so active on our social networks.
- goodluckchuck 3y ago
  I don’t know that critical thinking can be taught. However, you may be right that schools aren’t creating circumstances for children to learn it. I don’t know. What I do know is that most of the information that has ever existed (or will ever exist) is false. Because information can only be true to an extent, from a perspective, and for a purpose. If you change the scope and purpose of a discussion and look at it from a different perspective the truth will appear completely different. In this way I welcome our adversaries on our social networks. Even if they have the worst intentions we will end up better off (and so will they). We’re just that damned good.
  - enragedcacti 3y ago
    > Because information can only be true to an extent, from a perspective, and for a purpose. If you change the scope and purpose of a discussion and look at it from a different perspective the truth will appear completely different. I can't speak to how universal it is, but there is absolutely an effort to teach these skills in American public schools, especially through history classes and analysis of primary sources. As an example, here's the paraphrased techniques from a Library of Congress quarterly for Teachers about "Teaching with Primary Sources": > Think about a document’s author and its creation. Situate the document and its events in time and place. Carefully consider what the document says and the language used to say it. Using Background Knowledge: Use historical information and knowledge to read and understand the document. Identify what has been left out or is missing from the document by asking questions of its account. Ask questions about important details across multiple sources to determine points of agreement and disagreement. [1] https://www.loc.gov/static/programs/teachers/about-this-program/teaching-with-primary-sources-partner-program/documents/historical_thinking.pdf https://www.loc.gov/static/programs/teachers/about-this-prog...
peterbell_nyc 3y ago
It's also leading to the widespread sharing of poorly though out or researched ideas. While there has always been a tension between "truth" and what various entrenched powers wanted to portray to the population, it's not clear to me that the world is better with lots of niche groups believing things that a little bit of additional research would show to be based on demonstrably false reasoning.
ilyt 3y ago
But so far LLMs are mostly controlled and used by corporations, how does that help?
throwawayqqq11 3y ago
> The printing press led to the renaissance. The internet is now leading a new one. The first printed western book was the f'ing bible! Art and science lead the renaissance. The content matters, not the medium! > The fall of monarchies was not without bloodshed. Back then, the power gap in weapon technology was waaay smaller. We will not overcome anything beside a landslide election victory. > clergy, government, media, and corporations Consider AI a tool of the ruling class and tell me in which direction the overton window will move.

vel0city 3y ago

I feel this Renaissance is going to lead us right off a cliff though. Just yesterday I heard a friend say they're not giving their kids any vaccines at all, they trust moms on Tik Tok more than pediatricians and other doctors. Another friend almost lost their child from an easily correctable condition because of wanting to have their child at home because you just can't trust doctors and clinics. But where did they go when their child was delivered and was struggling to breathe? The hospital to those doctors they refused to be around originally. I've had people with multiple degrees tell me with a straight face eating microwaved foods is eating radiation that will cause cancer.

ttoinou 3y ago
A lot of doctors are stupid and a lot of TikTok moms are smart
- macintux 3y ago
  True but irrelevant. A stupid doctor still has years of training, resources to assist, and access to smarter doctors. A TikTok mom will (typically) have anecdata at best.
  - acyou 3y ago
    Doctors are specifically selected and trained to act and think according to clinical guidelines and published best practice. Critical and holistic thinking is discouraged, you can't have both. Are the above commenters saying Tiktokers are stupid, or moms are stupid, or that the combo is stupid? Moms kept the human race going strong for all of history. Have doctors accomplished that much in comparison, that they should be held in higher regard in society than mothers?
    - vel0city 3y ago
      > Are the above commenters saying Tiktokers are stupid, or moms are stupid, or that the combo is stupid? I'm arguing you shouldn't hire a plumber when you're needing to fix a car, you shouldn't hire a limo driver to fly a jet airliner, you shouldn't trust a chef for what kind fertilizer you should use on your plants. I'm not arguing all Tik Tokers are stupid. I'm not arguing all moms are stupid. I am arguing maybe they're not the best place to base your trust on efficacy of vaccines. Maybe the best place to get feedback on what kinds of toys seem to hold kids attention or strategies on getting your kids to eat vegetables, but probably not the best person to ask how to get a satellite into orbit. A big problem is people end up building trust around these personalities and start trusting their input on topics they've got no real experience in other than maybe some personal ancedotes. And I totally agree, someone can absolutely still be an idiot even with letters at the end of their name. One shouldn't just trust the messenger entirely, it should really only be a starting signal to help the signal to noise ratio.
- itishappy 3y ago
  Stupid people are unavoidable, that's why accountability is important. Stupid doctors don't stay doctors. Stupid mothers remain mothers for life.
guntherhermann 3y ago
But these people all existed 10, 20, 30 years ago, they have existed and will continue to exist throughout humanity. You cannot fix stupid. What is the solution, to control 'The Message'? I agree with the parent. I grew up on the 90s internet, where you didn't believe anything on it! Somewhere along the lines this changed (I blame 2007 -- the iPhone / huge numbers of people going online during this period), and that is the problem. If we have an issue, it's that people take information on the internet as gospel, hopefully if there's so much absolute dogshit on it, it will make people skeptical again.
- vel0city 3y ago
  I fully agree they've existed since the dawn of communication. It's different now that it's near free and available to broadcast that idiocy to a billion people in an instant. I'm not arguing the government should step in and massively regulate speech. I'm just saying I'm not exactly excited for where we're going on this ride. I think it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > It's different now that it's near free and available to broadcast that idiocy to a billion people in an instant. This doesn't matter, truth needs to travel but bullshit can be made up on the spot. Internet is way more beneficial for the truth, I talked to people before they used the internet and it was bullshit all over back then as well but there was no truth around to contradict them so maybe it wasn't as obvious. But today you can easily find out thanks to the internet.
    - vel0city 3y ago
      If it's irrelevant why does it seem there's far more flat earthers and anti-vaccine people today than 40 years ago? I do agree there are positives to the truth being more accessible. I don't need to go to the library or pay massive fees to access peer reviewed articles these days. I can collaborate with peers all over the world to search for the truth. This doesn't help when most of the popular web is actively pushing up falsehoods instead of the truth. And that's happening on a scale that's never before been possible.

TimTheTinker 3y ago

> Post-truth’s overwhelming flood of true, false, and irrelevant claims is empowering critical thinking. It’s offering freedom. By and large, critical thinking hasn't been taught effectively in public schools for at least 10 years now. Even when it was, only a fraction of the public were able to think independently and logically in such a way as to eliminate spurious data/voices and deduce the truth accurately. Far from empowering critical thinking, this lack of truth is creating a powerful vacuum that can easily be filled by propaganda and harmful ideology. No wonder the US's adversaries are so active on our social networks.

goodluckchuck 3y ago
I don’t know that critical thinking can be taught. However, you may be right that schools aren’t creating circumstances for children to learn it. I don’t know. What I do know is that most of the information that has ever existed (or will ever exist) is false. Because information can only be true to an extent, from a perspective, and for a purpose. If you change the scope and purpose of a discussion and look at it from a different perspective the truth will appear completely different. In this way I welcome our adversaries on our social networks. Even if they have the worst intentions we will end up better off (and so will they). We’re just that damned good.
- enragedcacti 3y ago
  > Because information can only be true to an extent, from a perspective, and for a purpose. If you change the scope and purpose of a discussion and look at it from a different perspective the truth will appear completely different. I can't speak to how universal it is, but there is absolutely an effort to teach these skills in American public schools, especially through history classes and analysis of primary sources. As an example, here's the paraphrased techniques from a Library of Congress quarterly for Teachers about "Teaching with Primary Sources": > Think about a document’s author and its creation. Situate the document and its events in time and place. Carefully consider what the document says and the language used to say it. Using Background Knowledge: Use historical information and knowledge to read and understand the document. Identify what has been left out or is missing from the document by asking questions of its account. Ask questions about important details across multiple sources to determine points of agreement and disagreement. [1] https://www.loc.gov/static/programs/teachers/about-this-program/teaching-with-primary-sources-partner-program/documents/historical_thinking.pdf https://www.loc.gov/static/programs/teachers/about-this-prog...

peterbell_nyc 3y ago

It's also leading to the widespread sharing of poorly though out or researched ideas. While there has always been a tension between "truth" and what various entrenched powers wanted to portray to the population, it's not clear to me that the world is better with lots of niche groups believing things that a little bit of additional research would show to be based on demonstrably false reasoning.

ilyt 3y ago

But so far LLMs are mostly controlled and used by corporations, how does that help?

throwawayqqq11 3y ago

> The printing press led to the renaissance. The internet is now leading a new one. The first printed western book was the f'ing bible! Art and science lead the renaissance. The content matters, not the medium! > The fall of monarchies was not without bloodshed. Back then, the power gap in weapon technology was waaay smaller. We will not overcome anything beside a landslide election victory. > clergy, government, media, and corporations Consider AI a tool of the ruling class and tell me in which direction the overton window will move.