3 ms·

I don't understand how that is relevant to the question I asked. Are you suggesting that no one can be experts on disinformation because different people have d

I don't understand how that is relevant to the question I asked. Are you suggesting that no one can be experts on disinformation because different people have different view on what is true? Sounds a bit silly to me. Is the earth flat or more shaped like a globe?

graphe 3y ago
What is "the truth" about animal fats or plant oils? What is the disinformation for it?
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 3y ago
  I still have no idea what point you are trying to make. I have not claimed to be an expert on the topic, I only asked why no one can be an expert. It sounds like your view is that no one can be an expert on disinformation because some topics are disputed. That's an "interesting" take. I guess that reasoning would leave pretty few experts in the world.
  - graphe 3y ago
    Saying they are experts are like telling you who is sexy or not. It's subjective. Some people really consider Marx or Friedman as the truth for instance. Digging deeper in the weeds we can make claims either way. Experts are often self appointed as well. If I was to declare myself an expert in an obscure area you don't understand by making wild claims that sound plausible it would be hard to say I wasn't and if some peers accepted it it would be even harder to deny it. An expert shouldn't be self appointed and if nobody trustworthy calls someone an expert they shouldn't be considered one too. If you consider someone an expert on your own by their knowledge it's different.
  - mrangle 3y ago
    >I only asked why no one can be an expert. Other than the fact that "disinformation expert" is a fake expertise invented to facilitate fallacious appeal to authority in the void left by a distrusted press: There are two answers to your question. First, everyone attempts to derive the truth from imperfect information and therefore is a "disinformation expert". There's no consistently guaranteed information access that makes any one person consistently an expert above most others, including Joe at his coffee table. That type of access and divulsion used to be assumed of the MSM. They destroyed their trust, and so now "disinformation experts" demand that trust. Broadley speaking, they won't get it. And they shouldn't. The second reason is that comprehensive presentation of any truthful information requires a presentation of all facts regarding it. Aside from the most mundane fact checking tasks, I've broadley observed "fact checkers" disseminating disinformation as much as the MSM does. Whether the method is lying by ommission or another.
TeeMassive 3y ago
Because it implies of knowing the truth as a matter of expertise, which is just arrogance even for experts. Expertise is about knowledge, not truth. There was also experts on lobotomy who won Nobel Prices. All of whom were assumed to be truthful and knowledgeable and yet was disinformation in its own right.
mrangle 3y ago
The scientific consensus is that the earth is shaped like a globe. Though, not really a globe. More like a mishapen sphere-like object. All science is never-ending discussion and consensus. Really poorly supported hypothesese can be infintely marginalized, but they can never be off-limits for discussion. If you are dealing in actual science. To insert "disinformation experts" into science to police hypothesese is, in fact, obviously anti-science. Unless one is merely speaking about misquoted quantitative data that can be corrected by referencing the actual source of the data. In actual science world, "disinformation police" is, in fact, research critique. No specific "disinformation experts" required.

graphe 3y ago

What is "the truth" about animal fats or plant oils? What is the disinformation for it?

tuwtuwtuwtuw 3y ago
I still have no idea what point you are trying to make. I have not claimed to be an expert on the topic, I only asked why no one can be an expert. It sounds like your view is that no one can be an expert on disinformation because some topics are disputed. That's an "interesting" take. I guess that reasoning would leave pretty few experts in the world.
- graphe 3y ago
  Saying they are experts are like telling you who is sexy or not. It's subjective. Some people really consider Marx or Friedman as the truth for instance. Digging deeper in the weeds we can make claims either way. Experts are often self appointed as well. If I was to declare myself an expert in an obscure area you don't understand by making wild claims that sound plausible it would be hard to say I wasn't and if some peers accepted it it would be even harder to deny it. An expert shouldn't be self appointed and if nobody trustworthy calls someone an expert they shouldn't be considered one too. If you consider someone an expert on your own by their knowledge it's different.
- mrangle 3y ago
  >I only asked why no one can be an expert. Other than the fact that "disinformation expert" is a fake expertise invented to facilitate fallacious appeal to authority in the void left by a distrusted press: There are two answers to your question. First, everyone attempts to derive the truth from imperfect information and therefore is a "disinformation expert". There's no consistently guaranteed information access that makes any one person consistently an expert above most others, including Joe at his coffee table. That type of access and divulsion used to be assumed of the MSM. They destroyed their trust, and so now "disinformation experts" demand that trust. Broadley speaking, they won't get it. And they shouldn't. The second reason is that comprehensive presentation of any truthful information requires a presentation of all facts regarding it. Aside from the most mundane fact checking tasks, I've broadley observed "fact checkers" disseminating disinformation as much as the MSM does. Whether the method is lying by ommission or another.

TeeMassive 3y ago

Because it implies of knowing the truth as a matter of expertise, which is just arrogance even for experts. Expertise is about knowledge, not truth. There was also experts on lobotomy who won Nobel Prices. All of whom were assumed to be truthful and knowledgeable and yet was disinformation in its own right.

mrangle 3y ago

The scientific consensus is that the earth is shaped like a globe. Though, not really a globe. More like a mishapen sphere-like object. All science is never-ending discussion and consensus. Really poorly supported hypothesese can be infintely marginalized, but they can never be off-limits for discussion. If you are dealing in actual science. To insert "disinformation experts" into science to police hypothesese is, in fact, obviously anti-science. Unless one is merely speaking about misquoted quantitative data that can be corrected by referencing the actual source of the data. In actual science world, "disinformation police" is, in fact, research critique. No specific "disinformation experts" required.