Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#191

Post by mehaveaccount » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:50 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #137

coldtea wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then actually follow up on their citations Not to mention that citations are not all they are touted to be. Just because something has been written by someone somewhere doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has been published on a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has the consensus opinion doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Ju…

OK, but many times that I see people making this argument they turn around and point me to some conspiracy theory from some guy yelling on youtube. There are dark ugly forces that benefit from the destruction of trust in the press and democratic institutions. You have to maintain a balanced world view. The government and the press have their biases but they are not always in conspiracy mode out to destroy the little…

>OK, but many times that I see people making this argument they turn around and point me to some conspiracy theory from some guy yelling on youtube.

So special interests can pay the money to tell their opinions on TV and in newspapers so they get to be "legitimate", but people who use cheaper channels accessible to the poor are "conspiracy theorists".

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#192

Post by makecheck » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:50 PM UTC

When people find out who said a particular thing, the “what” seems to fall by the wayside and the “who” seems to matter more. The statement is accepted or rejected outright because of the person. Maybe it is time to change that.

For instance, imagine a world where every bit of text you encounter — every news story, every tweet, every statement, every message — had no attributions AT ALL. Meaning, you have no idea if something was written by a celebrity, a politician with a (D) or an (R), your best friend, or your worst enemy. At that point, quite a bit of bias should start to filter out!

Or, there could be a middle ground, a kind of “anonymous key” to recognize statements by the same person. Say you read a story last month, and “agreed” with that person; this month, maybe there is a way to find out if something else you read is from the same person but NOT a way to see exactly who that is. Then, you can start to build a sense of trust in sources but are still not able to be influenced by other factors.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#193

Post by mehaveaccount » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:51 PM UTC

jimbokun wrote: post #60

coldtea wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then actually follow up on their citations Not to mention that citations are not all they are touted to be. Just because something has been written by someone somewhere doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has been published on a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has the consensus opinion doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Ju…

All you are really saying is its impossible to know anything for certain. Having a citation from a well regarded source is better than having no citation. Peer review is better than no review. There is probably a higher correlation for a statement from an official state agency being true, than a random statement with no attribution. So yes, a statement can satisfy any of the things you mention, and still not be true.…

>Having a citation from a well regarded source

Who gets to decide who is "well regarded" and who is not?

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#194

Post by sheldoan » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:52 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #18

> The fact that both we and it survive proves that it must have some adaptive function No, no, no, absolutely not, no, it doesn't. No. A feature can maintain itself in a population for a number of reasons: - it's neutral or not detrimental enough to drive affected individuals to extinction (ie, to get them killed before they have a chance to reproduce) - it's linked to some other trait that provides actual benefits -…

'Spandrel' is the technical term for a feature that is the byproduct of some other evolutionary adaptation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#195

Post by randcraw » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:57 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #34

Facts don't change our minds because we make up our world views and beliefs in a way that's expedient for us to happily continue about our lives. For instance, we all NEED to believe we're the 'good' guys. Whether the 'we' is our religion, our job, our state, political stance, etc... This prevents existential angst from realizing we're in the wrong, and then needing to change our behaviour which would disrupt our eve…

That sounds like a good strategy for peace of mind, or social harmony, but a poor strategy for individual survival. Believing that the police (or your six-shooter) will protect you from harm, when they won't, doesn't even look good on a tombstone.

IMO, the better question is: why is peace of mind more important to us than actually being right? If we really are enlightened (unsuperstitious), why isn't it more important to each of us that we know what we do/don't know and then assess risk and reward accordingly and rationally?

Why so little faith in reason?

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#196

Post by wvenable » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:57 PM UTC

makecheck wrote: post #192

When people find out who said a particular thing, the “what” seems to fall by the wayside and the “who” seems to matter more. The statement is accepted or rejected outright because of the person. Maybe it is time to change that. For instance, imagine a world where every bit of text you encounter — every news story, every tweet, every statement, every message — had no attributions AT ALL. Meaning, you have no idea if…

I'm not sure it matters. The real phenomenon of fake news (made up news to gather clicks) would be useless if people cared about the "who". It seems the case presented in the article, that people place more value on content that supports their world view, appears to work regardless of the source.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#197

Post by enord » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:57 PM UTC

laretluval wrote: post #20

coldtea wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or a very good time. One's circumstances are seldom that much dependent upon their beliefs about the world.

> One's circumstances are seldom that much dependent upon their beliefs about the world. You are interpreting belief in a very narrow and mysterious way. If you believe that poison is food, or that bus impacts are healthy, then you are going to have a bad time. There are many beliefs that must be correct in order to ensure survival. It isn't all relative.

>There are many beliefs that must be correct in order to ensure survival

Or you could say, you know, that beliefs must hold some utility. There are a lot of utilities that we need from our beliefs. I believe that the front of the bus is a portal to hell that threatens to damn me to eternal suffering, so I'm quite terrified when it approaches to engulf me. This shares utility with realizing that an impact with a bus can result in awesome momentum transfer, causing a sudden acceleration preventing my soft body from containing my precious bodily fluids. The point is the utility, not the rationalization (this term is loaded pretty heavy at this point, sorry).

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#198

Post by coding123 » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:57 PM UTC

meheleventyone wrote: post #91

coldtea wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't this more a distinction between science and science reporting In a way yes, but if we include the summaries of findings that scientists deliver to the public/governments/etc as "science reporting", then science reporting is 100% of science as we know it (unless we happen to practice it). Consider dietary advice that has since found to be BS, that was passed in the 70s and 80s as "scientific fact", not just by…

Right but wasn't that advice basically the state of the field at the time? That we know different now doesn't mean the scientists then should have acted on information unavailable to them.

Maybe this is why facts don't change our minds. Given exact evidence that it was wrong, which we all accept, and then turn around and say, oh yeah, we got it right this time. We're all trying to feed into our biases, not change our minds. I'm not trying to point out what you're beliefs in low-fat vs low-sugar diets have changed, I'm trying to point out the fact that you see evidence that science was wrong, and you still believe in it.

I'm not a luddite, I think everyone should believe in what is most likely true, I mean what else can we fucking do right? What I'm saying is don't turn "science facts" into a religion and believe it blindly. I think actual scientists do a good job at this, because they're actually testing it.

We fail when we convert science reports into articles and then into policy so quickly simply because it feeds into the biases of the people in charge at the time.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#199

Post by coldtea » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:57 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #137

coldtea wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then actually follow up on their citations Not to mention that citations are not all they are touted to be. Just because something has been written by someone somewhere doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has been published on a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has the consensus opinion doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Ju…

OK, but many times that I see people making this argument they turn around and point me to some conspiracy theory from some guy yelling on youtube. There are dark ugly forces that benefit from the destruction of trust in the press and democratic institutions. You have to maintain a balanced world view. The government and the press have their biases but they are not always in conspiracy mode out to destroy the little…

>The government and the press have their biases but they are not always in conspiracy mode out to destroy the little guy.

No, but they often are. And not just in easy to point fingers at regimes.

Not that long ago, the might NYT were writing about the fabled "WMDs", were independent bloggers (no YouTube existed yet) were speaking against that BS. To a third party those would have looked like conspiracy theorists.

Guess which side turned out to be true?

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#200

Post by coldtea » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 10:01 PM UTC

Brockenstein wrote: post #119

meheleventyone wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right but wasn't that advice basically the state of the field at the time? That we know different now doesn't mean the scientists then should have acted on information unavailable to them.

Right? Might as well be critical of public schools not teaching object oriented programming in the 1950's. And that's why my parents can't program, because schools were inferior...

Well, how about refraining from teaching BS state of the art?

Newton's theory wasn't proven wrong -- just inefficient at larger units / speeds, and was superseded by a more accurate theory that still gives the same results (more or less) for regular everyday observations.

Contrast with the kind of dietary advise of the 70s/80s which has been totally reversed. It wasn't "correct, but not entirely accurate", it was irrelevant, or worse, opposite, of what actually holds (according to what science says today).