7 ms·

John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty" wrote: > The real advantage which truth has, consists in this, that when an opinion is true, it may be extinguished once, twic

by n4r9 1y ago

John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty" wrote: > The real advantage which truth has, consists in this, that when an opinion is true, it may be extinguished once, twice, or many times, but in the course of ages there will generally be found persons to rediscover it, until some one of its reappearances falls on a time when from favourable circumstances it escapes persecution and is allowed to survive until it has made such head as to withstand all subsequent attempts to suppress it. I'm curious to know whether he'd still agree with that in the age of "fake news".

bendigedig 1y ago
Isn't that exactly what he's saying? There will be times and ages when it will be ignored but it will keep popping back up again and again.
- n4r9 1y ago
  I think he assumes that a certain quality of discourse will be maintained (or reappear), but it's not clear that that's true any more.
  - oblio 1y ago
    The thing is, we don't have a long enough time frame. People are generally sane, on average, but only when looked at on longer time frames. They really want progress. However, when you're in the middle of a revolution you don't really want to be there. Basically, probably the next generation will be able to tell how bad things really were and if by their time things are truly better.
  - tass 1y ago
    The dark ages were a time of much greater repression with worse consequences for non-compliance. It might be true that the current cycle of anti-intellectualism will continue beyond our lifetimes, but we’ve recovered from worse.
  - adamc 1y ago
    I think that quality of discourse will continue to exist, but web pages may not be it.
goalieca 1y ago
There’s been many examples recently. A very public one was that Covid was likely from a lab leak. There were many institutions and government figures that worked to oppress that, but now most experts agree this is a likely hypothesis.
- n4r9 1y ago
  I would agree that the lab leak is a good example, but for literally the opposite reason to you. Scientists are generally in favour of a natural origin: https://www.science.org/content/article/virologists-and-epidemiologists-back-natural-origin-covid-19-survey-suggests https://www.science.org/content/article/virologists-and-epid...
  - JohnCClarke 1y ago
    This is a good introduction to the highest quality evidence: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/origins-pandemic https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/origins-pandemic
    - n4r9 1y ago
      Thanks. I linked something more recent in anticipation of someone mentioning reports from the US Dept of Energy or the CIA.
  - TheBigSalad 1y ago
    "On average, respondents assigned a 77% probability to a zoonosis, 21% to the lab-leak scenario" While most scientists generally favor the natural origin theory, an alternative theory with a 21% chance is not something that should be dismissed or suppressed.
    - n4r9 1y ago
      Sure, but that's a very different take to "most experts agree it's a likely hypothesis". My impression is that scientists have consistently said it's possible, but quite unlikely, and unsupported by the evidence. Would you say it's been suppressed?
carlosjobim 1y ago
The truth is the truth, and it doesn't matter what people believe. The truth is still the truth, even if nobody existed.
mettamage 1y ago
Truth will still act. It will act in terms of competitive advantage, technology and the like. The manipulation of nature in any way is a source of power. It's just that such a source can sometimes be very small (e.g. there's a lot of math I won't use but I know about it). I suppose truth will act when relevant. Currently it's acting in a way where you can read this message. There's a lot of stuff that needs to be true in order for you to read what I write (e.g. computers working, internet working, electricity flowing, etc.).
growlNark 1y ago
I think with the linguistic turn the idea of a "correct opinion" feels a bit archaic. Sure, if you can truly glean the semantics and connotations of the language, you can feel confident their view is coherent, that they cohere with your views, etc, perhaps you can call their opinion correct in that agreement tends to be seen as correctness in a posteriori terms. But in practice, establishing that degree of confidence requires a shared linguistic background and skepticism. Especially when you're dealing with floating signifiers, as Locke tended to do (and as many respectable philosophers have done). Plus, Locke seems to have generally existed outside the concept of being paid for eyeballs. I am not sure much of his philosophy survived the rise of capitalism, which is perhaps why he still remains such a strong voice—we are simply aware on some level of what liberal idealism has lost, and we want it back. Personally, I think "truth" is actually a pretty weak concept and I have none of the attachments that enlightenment thinkers had to it. Even in good faith confidence about how other folks view concepts that are very real to us can be hard to come by. Am I sure that there the continent of Africa is not a conspiracy theory? Yes, I'm pretty sure. Well, what about the characterization of XYZ conflict? Or about the social value of idk role models with raising children? That's where newsrooms lose me—the terms are just too vague, the connotations too difficult to hold editors accountable for, for "truth" to be a real concern.
intended 1y ago
On a long enough time horizon, we are all dead. In my view, Mills (and Holmes) did not imagine someone winning in the market place of the ideas, because they found an infinite money glitch. Your information goods you produce, are losing in the market place of ideas, not because of their quality, but because 1) You are blocked from selling them into a market of customers on the right. 2) they are too expensive compared to the alternatives available. Take the intelligent design movement and how it was platformed by Fox News, as “schools should teach the controversy about evolution”. Implying that evolution isn’t “solid science”, and that ID was a potential answer for this issue. Or take how fox platformed cranks and bad science on environmental issues, allowing R senators and congress people to point to it, and stop pro-environment actions and bills. The posture of science at the time was to not engage with cranks, because “dont feed the trolls”. Shocked by the outcomes, scientists went on Fox, hoping to engage with the audience and explain their points - only to be peppered with gotchas, rhetorical tricks and arguments that made for good TV. Crucially, the underlying sentiment was to ridicule experts and destroy faith in the “liberal” institutions that were crushing conservative views and cultural ability. —— These are examples to illustrate that the people who are playing the market place of ideas have financialized it. They are not in it for democracy, they are not in it, to engage in actual commerce of ideas They are in it to break it. The job of members on the side of accuracy and science and evidence, is to understand it, realize the errors in their assumption, and to take advantage of the arbitrage opportunity that inefficient behavior must create. The cost of production of your facts and ideas, makes you more expensive and less useful, than the content being produced and subsidized on the right. Be cheaper, be more useful, break the embargo, be financially viable, and/or institute regulation that prevents the creation of idea monopolists. Either Participants that do not have to compete on the merits of their ideas, but on their ability to subsidize their media efforts, must be made uncompetitive in the market place of ideas. OR, we must accept that there is an unavoidable fail state at the intersection of human neurology and Laissez faire information economies, and deal with that.

by n4r9 1y ago

bendigedig 1y ago

Isn't that exactly what he's saying? There will be times and ages when it will be ignored but it will keep popping back up again and again.

n4r9 1y ago
I think he assumes that a certain quality of discourse will be maintained (or reappear), but it's not clear that that's true any more.
- oblio 1y ago
  The thing is, we don't have a long enough time frame. People are generally sane, on average, but only when looked at on longer time frames. They really want progress. However, when you're in the middle of a revolution you don't really want to be there. Basically, probably the next generation will be able to tell how bad things really were and if by their time things are truly better.
- tass 1y ago
  The dark ages were a time of much greater repression with worse consequences for non-compliance. It might be true that the current cycle of anti-intellectualism will continue beyond our lifetimes, but we’ve recovered from worse.
- adamc 1y ago
  I think that quality of discourse will continue to exist, but web pages may not be it.

goalieca 1y ago

There’s been many examples recently. A very public one was that Covid was likely from a lab leak. There were many institutions and government figures that worked to oppress that, but now most experts agree this is a likely hypothesis.

n4r9 1y ago
I would agree that the lab leak is a good example, but for literally the opposite reason to you. Scientists are generally in favour of a natural origin: https://www.science.org/content/article/virologists-and-epidemiologists-back-natural-origin-covid-19-survey-suggests https://www.science.org/content/article/virologists-and-epid...
- JohnCClarke 1y ago
  This is a good introduction to the highest quality evidence: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/origins-pandemic https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/origins-pandemic
  - n4r9 1y ago
    Thanks. I linked something more recent in anticipation of someone mentioning reports from the US Dept of Energy or the CIA.
- TheBigSalad 1y ago
  "On average, respondents assigned a 77% probability to a zoonosis, 21% to the lab-leak scenario" While most scientists generally favor the natural origin theory, an alternative theory with a 21% chance is not something that should be dismissed or suppressed.
  - n4r9 1y ago
    Sure, but that's a very different take to "most experts agree it's a likely hypothesis". My impression is that scientists have consistently said it's possible, but quite unlikely, and unsupported by the evidence. Would you say it's been suppressed?

carlosjobim 1y ago

The truth is the truth, and it doesn't matter what people believe. The truth is still the truth, even if nobody existed.

mettamage 1y ago

Truth will still act. It will act in terms of competitive advantage, technology and the like. The manipulation of nature in any way is a source of power. It's just that such a source can sometimes be very small (e.g. there's a lot of math I won't use but I know about it). I suppose truth will act when relevant. Currently it's acting in a way where you can read this message. There's a lot of stuff that needs to be true in order for you to read what I write (e.g. computers working, internet working, electricity flowing, etc.).

growlNark 1y ago

I think with the linguistic turn the idea of a "correct opinion" feels a bit archaic. Sure, if you can truly glean the semantics and connotations of the language, you can feel confident their view is coherent, that they cohere with your views, etc, perhaps you can call their opinion correct in that agreement tends to be seen as correctness in a posteriori terms. But in practice, establishing that degree of confidence requires a shared linguistic background and skepticism. Especially when you're dealing with floating signifiers, as Locke tended to do (and as many respectable philosophers have done). Plus, Locke seems to have generally existed outside the concept of being paid for eyeballs. I am not sure much of his philosophy survived the rise of capitalism, which is perhaps why he still remains such a strong voice—we are simply aware on some level of what liberal idealism has lost, and we want it back. Personally, I think "truth" is actually a pretty weak concept and I have none of the attachments that enlightenment thinkers had to it. Even in good faith confidence about how other folks view concepts that are very real to us can be hard to come by. Am I sure that there the continent of Africa is not a conspiracy theory? Yes, I'm pretty sure. Well, what about the characterization of XYZ conflict? Or about the social value of idk role models with raising children? That's where newsrooms lose me—the terms are just too vague, the connotations too difficult to hold editors accountable for, for "truth" to be a real concern.

intended 1y ago

On a long enough time horizon, we are all dead. In my view, Mills (and Holmes) did not imagine someone winning in the market place of the ideas, because they found an infinite money glitch. Your information goods you produce, are losing in the market place of ideas, not because of their quality, but because 1) You are blocked from selling them into a market of customers on the right. 2) they are too expensive compared to the alternatives available. Take the intelligent design movement and how it was platformed by Fox News, as “schools should teach the controversy about evolution”. Implying that evolution isn’t “solid science”, and that ID was a potential answer for this issue. Or take how fox platformed cranks and bad science on environmental issues, allowing R senators and congress people to point to it, and stop pro-environment actions and bills. The posture of science at the time was to not engage with cranks, because “dont feed the trolls”. Shocked by the outcomes, scientists went on Fox, hoping to engage with the audience and explain their points - only to be peppered with gotchas, rhetorical tricks and arguments that made for good TV. Crucially, the underlying sentiment was to ridicule experts and destroy faith in the “liberal” institutions that were crushing conservative views and cultural ability. —— These are examples to illustrate that the people who are playing the market place of ideas have financialized it. They are not in it for democracy, they are not in it, to engage in actual commerce of ideas They are in it to break it. The job of members on the side of accuracy and science and evidence, is to understand it, realize the errors in their assumption, and to take advantage of the arbitrage opportunity that inefficient behavior must create. The cost of production of your facts and ideas, makes you more expensive and less useful, than the content being produced and subsidized on the right. Be cheaper, be more useful, break the embargo, be financially viable, and/or institute regulation that prevents the creation of idea monopolists. Either Participants that do not have to compete on the merits of their ideas, but on their ability to subsidize their media efforts, must be made uncompetitive in the market place of ideas. OR, we must accept that there is an unavoidable fail state at the intersection of human neurology and Laissez faire information economies, and deal with that.