Whenever I hear “MSM” aka mainstream media , I know the rest will not be worth listening to,
Forget the turtles, it’s jakes all the way down.
I was going to suggest: Forget the turtles, Jake, it’s Chinatown all the way down.
Yes, but only provisionally. What this means is that your mind must ALWAYS be open to new evidence that contradicts the theory. Not necessarily open to complaints or doubts or other emotional input, but always open to actual new contradictory evidence, if it should be presented (or if it becomes apparent through your own experiments). Note the important fact that I am not claiming that there is any contradictory evidence so far, only that it is not impossible that there might be.
Not really, theories are not as factual as the observations behind them, for example.
See above. Of course they are, and of course we do. People did the same in the past, sometimes with theories that later turned out to be incorrect – the field of medicine springs to mind, for one.
Really, with this discussion, I am trying to do the impossible, to deter sloppy thinking and inaccurate short-cuts in writing about science. The punishment of Sisyphus is as nothing to this endeavor. I am not and never have suggested there was anything wrong with the theory of ACC (anthropogenic climate change), just that it is still a theory, and is currently somewhat less well supported than that the earth rotates in such a way that the sun appears to rise in the east.
I will close with a non-scientific historical analogy. Emile Zola was very, very unpopular in France when he defended Alfred Dreyfus on the charge of espionage. The government had what seemed like a very strong case, and on the strength of it, Dreyfus was sent to Devil’s Island. If some of the measures recommended here were in place then, Zola would have been completely shut down as being “counter-factual” and Dreyfus would have died in chains. The moral is that, when you give control over avenues of information to the government (because you believe them to be dis-information), then you will lose your path to the truth.
That’s beautiful! Thank you!
Note- I never said that it would be governmental control. The thread’s asking what can be done, not what can the government do, or how can we restrict free speech?
It’s not born out of a desire to punish the right wing, but rather to see if there’s a way to get both sides playing on the same field, which would involve having a common set of facts, and not basically the consensus of the entire scientific world on one side, and a bunch of ignorant people on the other going “But it’s just a theory, it’s not necessarily true.” on the other.
You can’t have meaningful, productive and even civil discussion and debate if one side refuses to deal in the same reality as the other. And I’d question whether you can even have an effective democracy under those conditions as well.
That’s the point there, if if should be presented. If it is not presented, then we do not assume it is out there, just waiting to be discovered.
But you are claiming that the fact that there might be is enough to doubt what has stood up to many challenges and tests.
The past is a different place. Comparing how people did things before we were able to actually make good observations and use the scientific method to how we do things now with much better observations and a pretty robust system for cross checking eachother and ourselves.
If that’s what you think you are doing… But it really seems as though you are trying to cast doubt upon the conclusions that have been reached by following the science that we understand very well. Saying that because a theory could be proven wrong, we may as well accept that it will be.
If that’s not what you are saying here, then I don’t disagree, but if that’s not what you are trying to communicate, you are doing a poor job of it.
I don’t see how that analogy fits at all. Part of the whole point of science is that it is an open community that pretty much anyone can join and check and review the data.
I’m not sure which measures you are talking about, specifically, as the buy in on any sort of government ministry of truth has been exceptionally low. In any case, this is talking specifically about news outlets, not all flows of information. The Dreyfus affair was kept secret, and it was leaks in the government that got the truth of it out, this is nothing like asking for news outlets to at least do a good faith effort in presenting truthful and verifiable facts as part of their reporting.
From what I am hearing here, you are saying that because a secret court improperly convicted someone in another country six plus score years ago, we need to allow broadcasters who call themselves news sources to blatantly lie to the public.
No, I am absolutely not doing that, and I defy you to point to any place where I have said anything to support that assertion. Openness to new information is not anything like casting doubt. Regarding scientific theories as only provisionally true is basic philosophy of science.
I believe I know why people react that way, they are afraid that any lack of solidarity in the absolute support of the theory amounts to weakness in the theory, and leaves it open to challenge. But it should be open to challenge, as should every scientific theory, and it is up to the observed facts to support it or to cast it aside.
To circle back to the OP, suppose one of those dis-informational news outlets came up with some real evidence that, say, would cause some revision in the theory. Should that evidence be suppressed because it came from the wrong place? Or should it be publicly available so that it can be confirmed or denied by other researchers?
Yes, did I ever say otherwise? I did not. I believe I have been pretty careful with my choice of words in this thread. You appear to me to be trying to read intentions behind those words that aren’t there. Such attempts at clairvoyance do not make for good debates.
“Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don’t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?”
Stalin understood the power of the state controlling the truth.
If you are to have freedom then you are going to have to deal with some messiness with regards to the validity of knowledge. Yes, it’s scary when PC ‘truths’ are challenged in the wild and the powerful and their henchmen can’t shut down communication by fiat or threats of force. But the alternative is far, far, far scarier and it’s a indicator of how shitty our public schools and universities are that this isn’t common knowledge.
Right, in science. This thread is about how reality is communicated to the public. It is very different for a scientist to choose to perform a new experiment to try to falsify general relativity than a journalist claiming that general relativity is at stake because someone is performing an experiment that could disprove it.
Journalists should not communicate as scientists do.
Your belief is not that far from the mark. If you add in the fact that people specifically do point to lack of solidarity in the absolute support of a theory amounts to weakness in the theory, then you would be much closer.
And here we are back to you stating that because evidence could be found that disproves a theory, that it will be. What about in the 99.999999% more likely scenario one of those dis-informational news outlets will fabricate evidence, or mislead, or in other ways misinform the public that chooses to consume it?
No, no one is saying that. What is being said is that it should be fact checked to tell whether it really is real evidence, or just another lie, and that sources that habitually lie should not be taken seriously.
Downside of this is that it is always much easier to tell a lie than it is to fact check it. The liars will always have the advantage. Should we always have to fact check sources that habitually lie, just in the off chance that this time they are telling the truth?
No one is talking about obscuring or hiding information, especially not from researchers. What is being discussed, at any level, is whether those in the media, journalists that are supposed to inform the public should have any sort of obligation to tell the truth.
From what I am hearing, you are saying that all lies should be given the benefit of the doubt, and should be treated as though they are true until they are meticulously debunked; that journalists who habitually lie should be given the benefit of the doubt, in case this time they are telling the truth.
I’m just going by what you said. You are the one who has invoked what you believe to be the motives here.
There is no one in this thread that is looking to suppress information, it is a matter of whether or not journalists should be held to any sort of ethical standard to present information from a good faith effort to ensure its veracity.
Let’s look at Dan Rather. He was given information that he presented in good faith, and since it turned out that he was misled, his career and reputation were destroyed. Brian Williams recounted a personal account with either embellishment or misremembered, and his career and reputation were destroyed. Is that a high standard to ask journalists to commit to? Sure. But to have journalists just lie and lie and lie and never face any consequence to their reputations, to still be looked to by the public as sources of information is a much lower standard than we should accept.
You are arguing something completely different, not whether or not journalists should do due diligence and present information in good faith, but whether information should be suppressed. That you are arguing against something that no one is arguing for does not make for a good debate.
And Murdoch understood the power of him controlling the narrative through lies.
Yes, we have the freedom to declare that we believe that ignorance is as good as knowledge. That doesn’t actually mean that it is.
No, that’s not scary, though I suppose that you are scared because you believe that anyone actually wants to shut down communication with henchmen by fiat or threats of force.
What is problematic for the continuation of civilization is when actual truths are denied. When settled science is questioned and dismissed, when people act in their own worst interest because they believe the lies that they are told.
And there is an entire universe of possibility that you excluded there.
That’s something that you can thank the Republicans for.
And here you are not understanding that “suppose” means a hypothetical. Perhaps you are having difficulty with the concept.
This is so hopelessly off the mark of what I am actually saying, that I am tempted to say that you are inventing it to bolster your lack of argument.
Further discussion with you is hopeless. I’m sure you’ll be happy to hear that I will not be responding to any future posts of yours in this thread.
Poetry.
And if someone proposes a hypothetical that pigs can fly, that doesn’t mean that I need to get out my umbrella.
Then you are communicating poorly. You are saying that information should not be treated any differently no matter the source, as hypothetically even a source that has been repeatedly telling lies may tell the truth.
I’ll agree that there is not much point here. You are arguing against what no one in this thread is advocating for. You are arguing against suppressing information which no one has argued for, rather than holding journalists to a standard of accountability, which is the point of the thread.
…and that’s how you maintain epistemic closure.
Well, if we wind up with a ‘disinformation police’ I’m sure they could at least be deputized.
Many people like to frame this topic as being simply a matter of free speech; that free speech intrinsically means allowing Hannity to look down the camera and make shit up for an hour.
But put it this way.
Right now, if I am broadcasting a segment that makes specific allegations about a company, I had better make sure I have information leading me to think that allegation is true, otherwise I could get in legal trouble later. FOX news recently forgot this, and needed to backpeddle on some of what they said about Dominion. And the same for infringing on copyright, state secrets etc etc.
Wouldn’t it be great if agencies dressing themselves as news, had to show the same care when running a story about claims like widespread voter fraud, say? Not that you can’t say it, but in the back of your mind is the knowledge that some day in court you might need to explain what information led you to think that claim was true, versus the degree of certainty with which you presented it to the audience.
Or, for shows unwilling to do such work (AKA journalism), they need to begin and end with a disclaimer: “This program is strictly entertainment. It does not report news, and none of the claims contained within should be taken seriously”.
And, just to be clear, I know nothing actually will be done about this problem. The idea of journalistic integrity standards is anathema to American culture at this point.
I am simply saying something could be done in a hypothetical world where all we needed to consider was reducing the issue of disinformational news while preserving freedom of the press.
To be fair, it also seems to be anathema to journalists.
Really? Most of the main agencies seem to shoot fairly straight most of the time.
Whenever someone tries to back up claims like “CNN is just as bad as FOX!” they end up really scraping the barrel for some trivial error, or a genuine fuckup but from decades ago.
Of course all agencies should have been more critical about reporting the government line on Iraq. Generally the American media is too soft on politicians but the Trump era has started to change that. And they all have an issue with “both sides”-ing too much stuff. But none of these are the same as making shit up.
Maybe this is the answer…I hope.