5 ms·
I think the fundamental problem is the characterisation “misinformation”. As a reasoning device it is useless and in fact, counter productive. “Misinformation”
by richrichie 2y ago
I think the fundamental problem is the characterisation “misinformation”. As a reasoning device it is useless and in fact, counter productive. “Misinformation” as used now is a dog whistle for stuff that does not agree with one’s world views. This leads to search for “experts” who are arbiters of facts and this system is always abused.
IMO, a reasoned discourse involves stating hypotheses that can be disproved and providing evidence that disproves them.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ironmagma 2y agoI agree that is the ideal. However there is still the realm of unprovables (and undisprovables). Further we learned during COVID that the burden of proving or disproving something can be extremely high, and sometimes a heuristic is the best that can be done, especially on a short deadline (do I mask or not mask? It takes weeks to do tests and I need to decide now).