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

81–90 of 287 posts

Re: Calling bullshit

#81

Post by croon »

ThomPete wrote: post #60
arethuza wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perspect…

> You can have two argument which are both true but politically only one of them can win.

No you can't. This is why we are living in "post-truth". Meaning it's not truth anymore.

You are right in that either one can win, but only one can be true.

Re: Calling bullshit

#82

Post by scandox »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #67

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the…

People know how to think critically in a particular context. What I find is that when they're in an unfamiliar context their level of critical thinking is lower. Also tiredness, stress and so on contribute to less critical thinking. Also most people have certain irrational trigger topics, things that are so emotive to them or so wrapped up in their sense of identity that they can't break them down critically. (All of this also applies to myself of course.)

Newton is, I guess, an example of someone very critical in one context and less critical in another (scientific historians rush to correct me).

Still, though, I don't think we can all do enough work on training young people to at least have the tools to think critically. Studying medieval history at 17 changed my entire way of thinking about credibility. I think I'd be a much less critical thinker if I had not had that experience.

Re: Calling bullshit

#83

Post by ThomPete »

croon wrote: post #78
coldtea wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now politicians claim to have never done things they are on film doing, and people believe them. "I never had sexual relations with that woman". "Read my lips: there will be no more taxes". "It depends on what the definition of is is". "I will close down Guantanamo Bay".

> >Now politicians claim to have never done things they are on film doing, and people believe them. > "I never had sexual relations with that woman". Wait, there's a sex tape of Bill Clinton? In all seriousness, quotes are all good, but you would benefit from saying what it is you hope to achieve by them.

I think the point is that facts (whether on TV or not) didn't use to matter more than they do today.

Re: Calling bullshit

#85

Post by pferde »

fiatjaf wrote: post #12

This is a course on being intelligent, it seems. If you are able to teach people how to be intelligent without making them actually intelligent (= to know a lot of things) then it is magic.

Isn't "to know a lot of things" just being wise? Being intelligent, to me, is more about being able to process information, arrive at conclusions - or, in simple words: to think well.

You could be wise without being intelligent (someone who learned a lot by rote learning, but doesn't understand much of it), or vice versa, although the latter is somewhat questionable - an intelligent person will likely use the intelligence to know more and more things. :)

Edit: heck, even D&D had separate wisdom and intelligence stats. :)

Re: Calling bullshit

#86

Post by ThomPete »

croon wrote: post #81
ThomPete wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perspect…

> You can have two argument which are both true but politically only one of them can win. No you can't. This is why we are living in "post-truth". Meaning it's not truth anymore. You are right in that either one can win, but only one can be true.

no thats not why people claim we are living in post-truth. They claim that because they claim that truth doesn't matter anymore but truth never mattered in politics and people aren't discarding truth.

I would urge you to give me examples in politics which can't have two different political outcomes both potentially true.

Re: Calling bullshit

#87

Post by [deleted] »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #67

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the…

[deleted]

Re: Calling bullshit

#88

Post by Dowwie »

Is this a MOOC? I don't see lecture videos.

I laughed hard after reading Week 3:

Week 3. The natural ecology of bullshit. Where do we find bullshit? Why news media provide bullshit. TED talks and the marketplace for upscale bullshit. Why social media provide ideal conditions for the growth and spread of bullshit.

Re: Calling bullshit

#89

Post by aninhumer »

coldtea wrote: post #70
diyorgasms wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Now politicians claim to have never done things they are on film doing, and people believe them. "I never had sexual relations with that woman". "Read my lips: there will be no more taxes". "It depends on what the definition of is is". "I will close down Guantanamo Bay".

>"I never had sexual relations with that woman".

And he was impeached for that, which is exactly the point.

Re: Calling bullshit

#90

Post by ThomPete »

croon wrote: post #80
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.

> 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. The second sentence explicitly contradicts the first one. By your second one you are saying that politics is based on the facts that science provides. Or rather, should be.

No I am saying that facts are used in politics and that we choose to use those differently.

But facts aren't the only things which are used in politics.

Post reply on HN