9 ms·
>Critically, if we are persuaded by either camp, we will find most of the sources in that camp believable. And most in the other camp to be not believable. You
by 99_00 3y ago
>Critically, if we are persuaded by either camp, we will find most of the sources in that camp believable. And most in the other camp to be not believable.
You don't believe one camp or the other. You look at how each camp reports on the same event. You use them against each other to get closer to the truth, like a trial where both sides argue their case and you are the judge.
- halyconWays 3y agoThis still falls prey to the most insidious type of lying: lying by omission. So many times I've seen primary sources as reported by a user posting a video on Twitter, and later I'll read news coverage of that same type (from either side), and they'll omit essential pieces of information that don't fit their narrative, or include irrelevant information that pushes their narrative. The latter category is often an attempt to frame your thinking or make you think a certain way about a target.
- 99_00 3y agoIn your example you looked at sources from two different sides of the debate and correctly identify the omissions and irrelevant information. To me that says that looking at the two different sides and judging their arguments to arrive at the truth works. A final test would be to see if your arrived truth is close to reality, without relying on human observers. This is done by using your truth to make predictions and see if those predictions come tru. To see if your model of reality has predictive power.
- _0ffh 3y agoI agree, though "works" and "truth" sound a bit optimistic to me. Let's say you'll probably improve on the accuracy of your picture, if you take more different sides of the story into account.
- 99_00 3y agoYou're right. I'm abusing the word "truth" and "works". But you get a clearer picture and avoid the most obvious attempts to mislead.
- giantrobot 3y agoThis only works in the case where both camps are acting/reporting in good faith AND you're capable of identifying bad faith actions/reports. Bad faith actors want you to think there's two genuine sides to issues so they can pull the Overton window further to their side. They don't care about truth or objective reality but "winning".
- KittenInABox 3y agoI really don't think this has helped me try to understand anything to do with the Palestine-Israel conflict. For example: a hospital in gaza is bombed by israel forces. Hamas claims X number of civilian deaths and says nothing about terrorists existing in the building. IDF doesn't claim any number of civilian deaths but does say that, generally, terrorists hide in these hospitals. No one confirms basic facts like who are the people being targeted, were they actually killed, and how many innocent civilians were calculated as an acceptable loss to destroy the targets. Overall I feel I'm left with even less information than when I started, since all either side can confirm is that Israel bombed a hospital. And this happens for a bunch of things: Israel bombs a neighborhood the UN has labeled a refugee camp. Hamas commits an act of terror with some number of hostages taken. I cannot even confirm if the food, water, and fuel being sent humanitarian-ly to Gaza is enough for the population there. One side claims there is a huge crisis of resources, the other side claims there's no crisis whatsoever.
- 99_00 3y agoWhen there is a war there is no credible information. Lying is not only seen as morally justified but as your duty because your life and your compatriot's lives are on the line every second of every day of the conflict.