4 ms·

You introduce a need to convey factual information. Why is such factual information required for living in the contemporary world?

wrs 3y ago
Even the devil wouldn’t advocate the direction you’re taking this.
- phoe-krk 3y ago
  That's why I'm doing it in their stead - see the sibling comment.
coldtea 3y ago
At some point there should stop being turtles (questions and justifications) all the way down, and we should agree on some basic shared assumptions/wisdom/reality. If we have to ask "why is factual information required for living in the contemporary world" something is very wrong with us or with this "contemporary world". Might as well ask "Why do people need to survive, period? Why not just have them all go and off themselves?".
- smcin 3y ago
  Perhaps a better framing is "What is the relative importance of being able to read and write for transmitting/receiving factual information vs emotional persuasion, these days?" and "What is the relative importance of being able to use those methods to transmit a message, vs media literacy on the receiving side, in understanding how and when something is trying to persuade us, and what tactics are being used?" (and ultimately if you keep digging into that, you ask "What is the ultimate purpose of an education, what specific skills will be needed in the daily life of the recipient?" which is a better to way to ask about how people survive. I don't see that the assumptions or reality are necessarily shared or basic.) One example is consumption of US Presidential debates of the radio era (1948-1960) vs TV vs social-media (2000s-) (when most people don't watch the full thing, they consume it via clips or soundbites, often distilled or reduxed by third-parties like media outlets, bloggers, highlights reels etc., which is handing over the power of framing and narrative to outlets who mightn't be either neutral or trustworthy). Like how the 2004 Democratic campaign of Howard Dean [0] was reduced (by many media outlets) to a soundbite which had zero to do with healthcare or fiscal policy. (Ok separately, shelve the a wider George-Carlin-type debate about whether political discourse is being dumbed down, by whom and to what ends). Or a non-political example: if you want to figure out what's a good new-release movie/show to watch, do you read(/watch) individual critic reviews? professional vs amateur critics? or in the old days, just rely on Ebert/Roeper/Siskel? imdb? RottenTomatoes (pre-2016 Comcast-Fandango takeover? or post-2016?) Twitter? or poll five of your friends? Or: what proportion of people can figure out north/south/east/west or navigate without a smartphone, only a map, signs and recognition points? It could plausibly be argued that navigating in general isn't as important as it used to be (unless you're in remote, unknown or hostile territory or don't have reliable phone charge or radio/satellite reception). Which depends largely on where you live and your occupation. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean_2004_presidential_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean_2004_presidential_...
- phoe-krk 3y ago
  Taking off my devil's advocate hat for a moment - I disagree here. Many places in the world already redefine "factual information" with their own definitions that are based on e.g. their political or cultural views. Pretending it doesn't happen is not a satisfactory choice for me. My play on being a devil's advocate is exactly going along this line - if we lose a part of the ability to convey facts because we lose an ability to read, then where exactly does this lead us to?
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >Taking off my devil's advocate hat for a moment - I disagree here. Many places in the world already redefine "factual information" with their own definitions that are based on e.g. their political or cultural views. Pretending it doesn't happen is not a satisfactory choice for me. Which is neither here, nor there. First, they don't redefine all or even most factual information, just politics/monetary/national/etc-interest charged facts. They still agree that a table is a table and that the Earth is flat, and billions of other things. Second, even when they refefine some fact, they still present the new information as fact. Because they still understand that facts are important. Third, whatever this or that party, or ideology, or politician, or corporation, or media outlet, does to distort facts, it is still accepted that facts are good, and facts corresponding to reality is what we should be aiming for. Fourth, no working scientist, engineer, and so on, can function well without facts or when provided with false facts pertaining to their field. They will still work with imperfect facts or with some wrong facts, but their output is improved the closest to accurate (and real) facts they get. In any case, usually it's not the bare facts that re contested, but their interpretation/evaluation (ethical, as regards to motive, or as regards to utility, etc). It's expected (and OK) to have different evaluations of a fact, based on your political or cultural views (that's the very definition of a different political and cultural views in the first place), as long as you agree with the objective parts of the fact (the underlying hard reality). You can say X war was good or bad, but not that it didn't happen when it did, for example. >My play on being a devil's advocate is exactly going along this line - if we lose a part of the ability to convey facts because we lose an ability to read, then where exactly does this lead us to? Who is "we"? Is the question is some person who doesn't care about facts, or is fed with bullshit facts they believe, can still be consumer, vote, make a living, be entertained, marry, and generally live their life? Is the question whether a country and a citizenry can live that way, and maintain their agency, dignity, effectiveness, and so on, the answer is no.

wrs 3y ago

Even the devil wouldn’t advocate the direction you’re taking this.

phoe-krk 3y ago
That's why I'm doing it in their stead - see the sibling comment.

coldtea 3y ago

At some point there should stop being turtles (questions and justifications) all the way down, and we should agree on some basic shared assumptions/wisdom/reality. If we have to ask "why is factual information required for living in the contemporary world" something is very wrong with us or with this "contemporary world". Might as well ask "Why do people need to survive, period? Why not just have them all go and off themselves?".

smcin 3y ago
Perhaps a better framing is "What is the relative importance of being able to read and write for transmitting/receiving factual information vs emotional persuasion, these days?" and "What is the relative importance of being able to use those methods to transmit a message, vs media literacy on the receiving side, in understanding how and when something is trying to persuade us, and what tactics are being used?" (and ultimately if you keep digging into that, you ask "What is the ultimate purpose of an education, what specific skills will be needed in the daily life of the recipient?" which is a better to way to ask about how people survive. I don't see that the assumptions or reality are necessarily shared or basic.) One example is consumption of US Presidential debates of the radio era (1948-1960) vs TV vs social-media (2000s-) (when most people don't watch the full thing, they consume it via clips or soundbites, often distilled or reduxed by third-parties like media outlets, bloggers, highlights reels etc., which is handing over the power of framing and narrative to outlets who mightn't be either neutral or trustworthy). Like how the 2004 Democratic campaign of Howard Dean [0] was reduced (by many media outlets) to a soundbite which had zero to do with healthcare or fiscal policy. (Ok separately, shelve the a wider George-Carlin-type debate about whether political discourse is being dumbed down, by whom and to what ends). Or a non-political example: if you want to figure out what's a good new-release movie/show to watch, do you read(/watch) individual critic reviews? professional vs amateur critics? or in the old days, just rely on Ebert/Roeper/Siskel? imdb? RottenTomatoes (pre-2016 Comcast-Fandango takeover? or post-2016?) Twitter? or poll five of your friends? Or: what proportion of people can figure out north/south/east/west or navigate without a smartphone, only a map, signs and recognition points? It could plausibly be argued that navigating in general isn't as important as it used to be (unless you're in remote, unknown or hostile territory or don't have reliable phone charge or radio/satellite reception). Which depends largely on where you live and your occupation. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean_2004_presidential_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean_2004_presidential_...
phoe-krk 3y ago
Taking off my devil's advocate hat for a moment - I disagree here. Many places in the world already redefine "factual information" with their own definitions that are based on e.g. their political or cultural views. Pretending it doesn't happen is not a satisfactory choice for me. My play on being a devil's advocate is exactly going along this line - if we lose a part of the ability to convey facts because we lose an ability to read, then where exactly does this lead us to?
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Taking off my devil's advocate hat for a moment - I disagree here. Many places in the world already redefine "factual information" with their own definitions that are based on e.g. their political or cultural views. Pretending it doesn't happen is not a satisfactory choice for me. Which is neither here, nor there. First, they don't redefine all or even most factual information, just politics/monetary/national/etc-interest charged facts. They still agree that a table is a table and that the Earth is flat, and billions of other things. Second, even when they refefine some fact, they still present the new information as fact. Because they still understand that facts are important. Third, whatever this or that party, or ideology, or politician, or corporation, or media outlet, does to distort facts, it is still accepted that facts are good, and facts corresponding to reality is what we should be aiming for. Fourth, no working scientist, engineer, and so on, can function well without facts or when provided with false facts pertaining to their field. They will still work with imperfect facts or with some wrong facts, but their output is improved the closest to accurate (and real) facts they get. In any case, usually it's not the bare facts that re contested, but their interpretation/evaluation (ethical, as regards to motive, or as regards to utility, etc). It's expected (and OK) to have different evaluations of a fact, based on your political or cultural views (that's the very definition of a different political and cultural views in the first place), as long as you agree with the objective parts of the fact (the underlying hard reality). You can say X war was good or bad, but not that it didn't happen when it did, for example. >My play on being a devil's advocate is exactly going along this line - if we lose a part of the ability to convey facts because we lose an ability to read, then where exactly does this lead us to? Who is "we"? Is the question is some person who doesn't care about facts, or is fed with bullshit facts they believe, can still be consumer, vote, make a living, be entertained, marry, and generally live their life? Is the question whether a country and a citizenry can live that way, and maintain their agency, dignity, effectiveness, and so on, the answer is no.