4 ms·
This 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
by halyconWays 3y ago
This 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.