Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think, at the end of the day and what you are seeing a lot of right now is that, people are going to believe what they WANT to believe, not what they actually know to be true.
They've taken their personal opinions and made up "facts" to reinforce said opinions.
I think the best think we can do is not legitimize these types of people.
Can the country sustain itself as a country with a half of its population being completely whacky, stupid, radical or whatever the adjective you want to describe the other half?
This is going to sound a radical, but bringing an end to social media is the only answer I can think of. This will never happen of course, because Facebook, Twitter, and others generate too much revenue and are so ingrained into our society and economy. The internet was supposed to bring the democracy of ideas and knowledge to all, but we are finding out that it is easily manipulated and fringe ideas with no basis of truth can hold as much weight to someone who is lazy about fact-checking vs. established ideas that are rooted in evidence or science. Sure, rational people can walk away from social media (and many are starting to do this), but you are always going to have a core group of people that will live in their echo chamber and never come out from it.
Thanks for offering a solution. But who decides what misinformation is?
Now I feel I have a pretty good grasp of reality, but about a half of the population thinks I'm nuts.
How do we overcome that?
Disagreement doesn't imply a lack of truth.
The problem misinformation on social media is not information about which there is no objective truth. The problem here is not that we can't figure out what is true.
If half of the world suddenly thought 2+2=6, it wouldn't be the case that there was no truth about 2+2=4.
The problem misinformation on social media is not information about which there is no objective truth. The problem here is not that we can't figure out what is true.
If half of the world suddenly thought 2+2=6, it wouldn't be the case that there was no truth about 2+2=4.
I know that there is objective truths, but the other side (whichever side that is) argues passionately their objective truth is the valid one. No matter how objective a thing appears to me, there is a way around it according to the other side, it seems.
If there is no objective standard to determine what facts are, how would politicians even have rational discussion? And if politicians can't even have rational discussions, how would the country make rational decisions?
If Biden wins, he would have to deal with a half of population who doesn't share the same reality.
If Trump wins, he would have to deal with a half of population who doesn't share the same reality.
Again, can the country sustain itself like this long term?
It is cathartic and pleasurable to condemn one's perceived adversaries, and to regard them as not being merely wrong in their opinions, but outright incapable of rational thought. This is pleasant in multiple ways. It makes one feel better about oneself. It cements group membership and tribal identity. It simplifies a complex world. It assigns causal relationships (things are bad because the other guys are absolute idiots). And it justifies our continuing hatred, thus being self-sustaining.
I'd argue that our situation actually isn't so bad. If it were, then we'd absolutely have to dispense with our differences and work together. If the 'rona has killed 20M Americans and was on its way to killing 200M or more, our response would be different, for example.
So, what to do? I would aver: nothing. Let things blow over.
I know that there is objective truths, but the other side (whichever side that is) argues passionately their objective truth is the valid one. No matter how objective a thing appears to me, there is a way around it according to the other side, it seems.
If there is no objective standard to determine what facts are, how would politicians even have rational discussion? And if politicians can't even have rational discussions, how would the country make rational decisions?
If Biden wins, he would have to deal with a half of population who doesn't share the same reality.
If Trump wins, he would have to deal with a half of population who doesn't share the same reality.
Again, can the country sustain itself like this long term?
I think your question is how do you get people to care about objective standards for truth, not whether such a standard exists.
Again, widespread disagreement doesn't have anything to do with whether there is an objective standard for truth. The problem is that people are simply not using that standard.
I don't know how the problem can be fixed, and I'm not sure the country can sustain itself if large parts of the population are more likely to believe conspiracy videos on YouTube than actual experts with a PhD and widespread industry respect.
Look at the "legs" the Hunter Biden thing has grown. An inch of speculation leads to miles of people treating it as though it is fact. QAnon is even worse. You have a lot of people believing that Hillary Clinton literally drinks the blood of little children. If someone wrote a fiction book with this stuff in it, it would be dismissed as too crazy.
How do you make someone who believes Hillary Clinton drinks the blood of little children care about objective standards for truth? I have no clue, but I hope someone figures it out.
...
I don't know how the problem can be fixed, and I'm not sure the country can sustain itself if large parts of the population are more likely to believe conspiracy videos on YouTube than actual experts with a PhD and widespread industry respect.
Objective truth derives its objectivity inherently, and not by appeal to authority. That credentialed experts agree on one thing, but random charlatans posit its opposite, does not make the one or the other view objectively true. If ignorant and personally unable to gather data, or to reason about the problem, I would side with the experts. But this is just a heuristic and a lazy shortcut. It isn't a demonstration of objective truth.
That objective truth is even possible, is its own debate. Let us stipulate that it is indeed possible. What then? Is it a guide for how to behave? For policy? For laws? It is, let's say, objectively true, that kinetic energy goes as the square of the velocity magnitude. So, driving faster means that collisions will be more dangerous, since there's more kinetic energy to dissipate. Does this imply a policy of lower speed limits?
In other words, objective truth by itself doesn't take us far, in the public sphere. What we do with this truth, to determine how to live, is subjective. And possibly even wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
How do you make someone who believes Hillary Clinton drinks the blood of little children care about objective standards for truth? I have no clue, but I hope someone figures it out.
The point of the blood-drinking accusations is to condemn their target as being reprehensible, vile, and hopelessly incorrigible. It's not a positing of scientific fact, but a painting of a picture. An enemy who's wrong in policy but honorable in some fundamental way, at least deserves a smattering of respect. An enemy who is heinously vile, deserves nothing but annihilation. If the goal is annihilation, "truth" doesn't matter. All that matters is a compelling narrative, a painting that raises our emotions and our ire.
Objective truth derives its objectivity inherently, and not by appeal to authority. That credentialed experts agree on one thing, but random charlatans posit its opposite, does not make the one or the other view objectively true. If ignorant and personally unable to gather data, or to reason about the problem, I would side with the experts. But this is just a heuristic and a lazy shortcut. It isn't a demonstration of objective truth.
Sure, I'm not arguing that objective truth is objectively true because experts believe it. Rather, I'm suggesting that they are in the best position possible to obtain objective truth, particularly in technical matters, so we shouldn't dispute a strong consensus of experts based on flimsy lay evidence.
Lay people shouldn't disagree with scientists on climate change simply because lay people are able to gather data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
That objective truth is even possible, is its own debate. Let us stipulate that it is indeed possible. What then? Is it a guide for how to behave? For policy? For laws? It is, let's say, objectively true, that kinetic energy goes as the square of the velocity magnitude. So, driving faster means that collisions will be more dangerous, since there's more kinetic energy to dissipate. Does this imply a policy of lower speed limits?
Of course not. I didn't say anything about policy implications. I'm referring specifically to skepticism about objective truth. A close cousin of this is a low epistemic standard. Taking big claims as fact when all we have to base them on are flimsy conspiracy theories isn't a violation of objective truth, but it is acting as a poor epistemic agent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
The point of the blood-drinking accusations is to condemn their target as being reprehensible, vile, and hopelessly incorrigible. It's not a positing of scientific fact, but a painting of a picture. An enemy who's wrong in policy but honorable in some fundamental way, at least deserves a smattering of respect. An enemy who is heinously vile, deserves nothing but annihilation. If the goal is annihilation, "truth" doesn't matter. All that matters is a compelling narrative, a painting that raises our emotions and our ire.
No, it is a literal claim. It is not an allegory. It means that Hillary Clinton is literally drinking the blood of children, and this is a claim believed by an alarming number of people.
Can the country sustain itself as a country with a half of its population being completely whacky, stupid, radical or whatever the adjective you want to describe the other half?
The answer is yes. things have been like this much of the time in America in the past 200 years. You seem to be fixated on this idea that half the country will fight the other half. The truth is 99% of us have better things to do than try to fight with people who think differently.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
