5 ms·
The shared reality in that example includes only facts: OP and mum went to a movie. The movie was called X. The actors were Y and Z. The original point of this
by ryandrake 2mo ago
The shared reality in that example includes only facts: OP and mum went to a movie. The movie was called X. The actors were Y and Z.
The original point of this subthread was that we can't even agree on a shared set of facts anymore! The political Right has an entirely different set of facts than the political Left, and when our reality is derived from those facts, we cannot share the same reality anymore.
- hnlmorg 2mo agoIf the facts can differ then they’re not facts. What you’re then dealing with is propaganda.
- ryandrake 2mo agoThen, we're just back to OP's conundrum: "Everything is opinion." I'll say grass is green and you'll say grass is red, and there can be no fact because they differ.
- hnlmorg 2mo agoNot really no. Some things can be proven while some cannot. The colour of grass is something that’s scientifically measurable. My point is that some broadcasters are very strict about sticking to the facts. Some will misrepresent those facts but not technically lie (eg discuss statistics that favour their partisan view but don’t share the full context behind those stats). And then there’s broadcasters like Fox News that promote flat out lies. It’s often not even an interpretation of the truth. It’s shared as an opinion but the evidence clearly proves it’s just lies presented as facts. And I really wish there were criminal charges for broadcasting blatant lies. Not just in America, but most of the developed world where populist-propaganda is used to brainwash gullible voters.
- win311fwg 2mo agoCommunication cannot be scientifically measured. Someone's expression being a "blatant lie" can only ever be an opinion, fundamentally.
- hnlmorg 2mo agoBroadcasters absolutely have a responsibility to ensure they communicate truthful statements in exactly the same way that any other profession has a responsibility to ensure their output is correct.
- win311fwg 2mo agoFundamentally impossible. Communication is completely made up. It cannot be measured scientifically. Consider the statement: "Cows live on the moon". It is 100% true, although you may not see it that way if you misinterpret what is said. It's only a lie to the extent that your opinion says it is even though in actuality it is the truth.
- hnlmorg 2mo agoThat’s some serious mental gymnastics you’re applying there but that’s not really how society works. We, as a society, fully understand the concept of truthful and untruthful statements. We learn it as a child and get scalded when we lie. We depend on this understanding in law, courts, contracts, and commerce. We understand it when educators teach and when requesting services of others. If you want to claim that communication cannot be truthful nor verifiable at any level, then society would fail to function because the literal point of communication is to share an information. Now if you wanted to make a philosophical point about proving an intent to lie, or our perceptions of reality, rather than communication as a medium, then that’s a different topic (and one I discussed elsewhere in this thread). But for your exact argument presented, we already have millennia of past precedence to prove that communication is expected to have truthful statements.
- win311fwg 2mo ago