4 ms·

I’ve seen more of this type of rhetoric online in the last few years and find it very insidious. It subtly erodes the value of objective truth and tries to pain

I’ve seen more of this type of rhetoric online in the last few years and find it very insidious. It subtly erodes the value of objective truth and tries to paint it as only one of many interpretations or beliefs, which is nothing more than a false equivalence. The concept of being unbiased has been around for a long time, and we’re not going to throw it away just because a few people disagree with the premise.

CooCooCaCha 1y ago
There is no rhetoric here, it’s just literal truth. There is no implication of equivalence or any statement about the value of objective truth. Any position is a bias. A flat earther would consider a round-earther biased. That doesn’t make them equal positions.
- kergonath 1y ago
  > Any position is a bias. A flat earther would consider a round-earther biased. That’s bollocks. The Earth is measurably not flat. You start from a position of moral relativism and then apply it to falsifiable propositions. It’s really not the same thing. Some ideas are provably false and saying that they are false is not "bias".
  - CooCooCaCha 1y ago
    Dice are considered "biased" if not all sides have equal probability, even if that's literally true. When you look up the definition of bias you see "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair." So the way we use the word has an implication of fairness to most people, and unfortunately reality isn't fair. Truth isn't fair. And that's what I'm trying to point out here in reference to LLM output.
    - kergonath 1y ago
      Right. My point is that there are things we can argue about. "Is it better to have this road here or to keep the forest?", for example. Reasonable people can argue differently, and sensibility is important. Some would be biased towards business and economy, and others would be biased towards conservation. Having these debates in the media is helpful, even if you disagree. But "is the Earth flat?" is no such question. Reasonable people cannot disagree, because the Earth is definitely not flat. Pretending like this is a discussion worth having is not being impartial, it’s doing a disservice to the audience.
- KingMob 1y ago
  > truth itself is a bias Ehh, bias connotes unfairness, but espousing the truth should be considered the fairest position. In statistics, bias literally refers to an inaccurate distortion of results. I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think it's a useful definition of bias.
  - CooCooCaCha 1y ago
    Truth isn't fair because reality isn't fair. Dice are considered "biased" if not all sides have equal probability, even though that's the "truth" of the die.
_factor 1y ago
I tend to agree with you that defining truth as: “These elements interacted like so,” is difficult to bias unless you introduce relativity. The problems arise when why comes into play and ascribing intent.

CooCooCaCha 1y ago

There is no rhetoric here, it’s just literal truth. There is no implication of equivalence or any statement about the value of objective truth. Any position is a bias. A flat earther would consider a round-earther biased. That doesn’t make them equal positions.

kergonath 1y ago
> Any position is a bias. A flat earther would consider a round-earther biased. That’s bollocks. The Earth is measurably not flat. You start from a position of moral relativism and then apply it to falsifiable propositions. It’s really not the same thing. Some ideas are provably false and saying that they are false is not "bias".
- CooCooCaCha 1y ago
  Dice are considered "biased" if not all sides have equal probability, even if that's literally true. When you look up the definition of bias you see "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair." So the way we use the word has an implication of fairness to most people, and unfortunately reality isn't fair. Truth isn't fair. And that's what I'm trying to point out here in reference to LLM output.
  - kergonath 1y ago
    Right. My point is that there are things we can argue about. "Is it better to have this road here or to keep the forest?", for example. Reasonable people can argue differently, and sensibility is important. Some would be biased towards business and economy, and others would be biased towards conservation. Having these debates in the media is helpful, even if you disagree. But "is the Earth flat?" is no such question. Reasonable people cannot disagree, because the Earth is definitely not flat. Pretending like this is a discussion worth having is not being impartial, it’s doing a disservice to the audience.
KingMob 1y ago
> truth itself is a bias Ehh, bias connotes unfairness, but espousing the truth should be considered the fairest position. In statistics, bias literally refers to an inaccurate distortion of results. I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think it's a useful definition of bias.
- CooCooCaCha 1y ago
  Truth isn't fair because reality isn't fair. Dice are considered "biased" if not all sides have equal probability, even though that's the "truth" of the die.

_factor 1y ago

I tend to agree with you that defining truth as: “These elements interacted like so,” is difficult to bias unless you introduce relativity. The problems arise when why comes into play and ascribing intent.