Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Calling bullshit

callingbullshit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 287 posts

Re: Calling bullshit

#51

Post by ThomPete »

krapp wrote: post #47
ThomPete wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we stop with the claims about a post-truth era? It's not like people suddenly decided to disregard truth and not believe in actual truths. It's that we have just realized that interpretation is not the same as truth and have now been made aware that there are other interpretations of the facts than our own. We don't live in a post-truth world, we live in a world were the truth is confused with difference of opini…

>It's not like people suddenly decided to disregard truth and not believe in actual truths. "post-truth" doesn't mean people have decided to disregard truth, it means that factual truth is no longer a relevant factor in in the effectiveness of political arguments for many people. See Karl Rove's quote about the "reality-based" community (which may or may not be apocryphal) versus the American empire which simply crea…

It's never been. Perception have always been reality and politicians have always used that to get things their way. Thats why they study rhetorics not science.

There is no objective transcendence between facts and politics decisions.

You can believe that climate change is created by humans and still decide not to do anything about it because you also believe that technology will solve most of those problem, or that there are bigger problems (astroid hitting earth for instance) etc.

Re: Calling bullshit

#52

Post by arethuza »

ThomPete wrote: post #48
arethuza wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I have noticed recently is a rather shameless admission by many in politics that not only have they been lying but ultimately that "truth" doesn't matter .

In politics truth doesn't matter as such and never have. Politics is about getting it your way not about being right. It's about interest and choices. The idea that politics is or should somehow be based on facts is misguided. We have science for facts what we choose to do with those facts is were politics come in.

Of course, I agree that politics isn't based on facts but the idea that politics shouldn't be based on relevant facts is, to me, an appalling idea.

Re: Calling bullshit

#53

Post by sremani »

kornakiewicz wrote: post #6

I wish this kind of courses were mandatory for all undergraduates in our post-truth era.

When iPhone was in 3rd or 4th iteration, people talked of post PC era, but at work or at home, you certainly have PC where most "work" is still done.

When Obama was elected they said Post-racial america, and we now know how much it is not.

So, now some butt-hurt people from election came up with Post-Truth, even though people were constantly conned into stuff that is untrue, like WMDs or you can keep your doctor.

After much thought, I forward the motion for Post-Post-Prepending Era.

Re: Calling bullshit

#54

Post by gcatalfamo »

I think this is an effort towards the people that don't need such effort. The people really needing this course will never willingly read - or understand - such educated content.

Re: Calling bullshit

#55

Post by ThomPete »

arethuza wrote: post #52
ThomPete wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In politics truth doesn't matter as such and never have. Politics is about getting it your way not about being right. It's about interest and choices. The idea that politics is or should somehow be based on facts is misguided. We have science for facts what we choose to do with those facts is were politics come in.

Of course, I agree that politics isn't based on facts but the idea that politics shouldn't be based on relevant facts is, to me, an appalling idea.

But again who decides what are relevant facts? This is the crux of the matter here.

What you seem to want to have is a technocratic system.

Re: Calling bullshit

#56

Post by diyorgasms »

ThomPete wrote: post #51
krapp wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not like people suddenly decided to disregard truth and not believe in actual truths. "post-truth" doesn't mean people have decided to disregard truth, it means that factual truth is no longer a relevant factor in in the effectiveness of political arguments for many people. See Karl Rove's quote about the "reality-based" community (which may or may not be apocryphal) versus the American empire which simply crea…

It's never been. Perception have always been reality and politicians have always used that to get things their way. Thats why they study rhetorics not science. There is no objective transcendence between facts and politics decisions. You can believe that climate change is created by humans and still decide not to do anything about it because you also believe that technology will solve most of those problem, or that t…

This is gaslighting. Facts used to matter. It used to be that politicians would substantially lose face for inconsistencies in policy (think John Kerry most recently). Now politicians claim to have never done things they are on film doing, and people believe them.

We are absolutely in a new mode of politics, one that transcends mere differences of opinion. To pretend otherwise does everyone a disservice.

Re: Calling bullshit

#57

Post by norswap »

natural_capital wrote: post #11

I really like this idea, though struggle to understand the effectiveness. My guess is that the type of person who falls victim to 'bullshit' theory or messages is not the kind of person who is willing to dedicate time to an online course about learning to be more critical in thought. 'Bullshit' thinking has been largely successful because its an effortless pathway to establishing an opinion on something (queue System…

There are different ranks of bullshit. But it regularly pops up even in fields populated almost exclusively with smart and critical people (e.g. academia).

May I suggest that maybe you are not attuned to nth-order bullshit? It's relatively harmless, but it's out there.

In a way, seeing through all the bullshit is a feat of almost superhuman strength, even more so without falling prey to cynicism or nihilism.

Re: Calling bullshit

#58

Post by ThomPete »

diyorgasms wrote: post #56
ThomPete wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's never been. Perception have always been reality and politicians have always used that to get things their way. Thats why they study rhetorics not science. There is no objective transcendence between facts and politics decisions. You can believe that climate change is created by humans and still decide not to do anything about it because you also believe that technology will solve most of those problem, or that t…

This is gaslighting. Facts used to matter. It used to be that politicians would substantially lose face for inconsistencies in policy (think John Kerry most recently). Now politicians claim to have never done things they are on film doing, and people believe them. We are absolutely in a new mode of politics, one that transcends mere differences of opinion. To pretend otherwise does everyone a disservice.

When did facts use to matter and for what?

The only disservice is to claim that things are somehow different when they are in fact the same.

Re: Calling bullshit

#59

Post by arethuza »

ThomPete wrote: post #55
arethuza wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, I agree that politics isn't based on facts but the idea that politics shouldn't be based on relevant facts is, to me, an appalling idea.

But again who decides what are relevant facts? This is the crux of the matter here. What you seem to want to have is a technocratic system.

Ideally I'd expect politicians to pick and choose "facts" that suit there arguments (or on a rare occasion actually have their arguments informed by data) and to ideally reference the sources so they can be checked by anyone who cares.

Is that an "elite" approach then?

Of course, what I describe above is an ideal - politics is a mucky business and the essence of a democracy is essentially that we get to choose between the liars. However, what I do have difficulty with is the idea that reasoning from actual factual data or scientific hypotheses has no role in politics.

Re: Calling bullshit

#60

Post by ThomPete »

arethuza wrote: post #59
ThomPete wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But again who decides what are relevant facts? This is the crux of the matter here. What you seem to want to have is a technocratic system.

Ideally I'd expect politicians to pick and choose "facts" that suit there arguments (or on a rare occasion actually have their arguments informed by data) and to ideally reference the sources so they can be checked by anyone who cares. Is that an "elite" approach then? Of course, what I describe above is an ideal - politics is a mucky business and the essence of a democracy is essentially that we get to choose betwee…

But thats the problem. You can have two argument which are both true but politically only one of them can win. This is why we argue.

Not because we are uniformed but because our perspectives are different and our perspectives are different because it affects us differently.

And so the real danger here is to go along with this romantic notion that facts used to be more meaningful when in fact it was only that perspectives were more aligned than they are today.

Post reply on HN