4 ms·

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 th

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.
ipython 3y ago
You can only begin to understand the complexity and nuance of a subject if you are exposed to information in long written form. Tbh I see this with my own kids who don’t even know what questions to ask because they haven’t seen the possibility that there is more depth than what’s available with one click on Google. Imo it leads to a propaganda driven and conspiracy mindset- if your understanding of the world is limited to a shallow “us vs them” viewpoint, and don’t know how to truly dive deeper into a subject (not just politically charged subjects, just any subject) - then you are imo more willing to accept a “magical” view of the world since you can’t understand what’s going on and you are at the mercy of whomever is more charming at the moment.

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.

ipython 3y ago

You can only begin to understand the complexity and nuance of a subject if you are exposed to information in long written form. Tbh I see this with my own kids who don’t even know what questions to ask because they haven’t seen the possibility that there is more depth than what’s available with one click on Google. Imo it leads to a propaganda driven and conspiracy mindset- if your understanding of the world is limited to a shallow “us vs them” viewpoint, and don’t know how to truly dive deeper into a subject (not just politically charged subjects, just any subject) - then you are imo more willing to accept a “magical” view of the world since you can’t understand what’s going on and you are at the mercy of whomever is more charming at the moment.