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

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#201

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 10:03 PM UTC

enord wrote: post #171

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Beliefs are the same, and a relation to "facts" or "truth" is not a requrement for their utility. Let's apply a little recursion here, shall we? I gather that you believe what I quoted. But you admit that your belief does not need to have any relation to facts or truth. You believe what you said, because that belief has some utility to you. But why should I believe you? That is, your view, applied to itself, destro…

I mean... In some circumstances you would be right, but the mind is not a formal system that stands or falls on soundness. If you read it a little more charitably, i said "is not a requirement for", rather than "is completely unrelated to". I'll wager that we are successful _almost because_ our minds function adequately while entertaining "untrue" beliefs in a strict sense.

Very well. If I understand correctly, evolution selects for "good enough answers fast enough" rather than "formally correct reasoning", which I think is what you are saying in your last sentence.

Maybe what I should say is that, if your conclusion is correct, we can never be certain that it is. The "formal system" problem that I pointed out only means that we should maintain a certain level of distrust for the conclusion, rather than proving it incorrect. (At least, that's how it seems to me at the moment. I reserve the right to re-think this.)

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#202

Post by Qcombinator » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 10:03 PM UTC

Eridrus wrote: post #9

squozzer wrote: post #4

Here's an application of our faulty, socially-dependent reason: Health care is a right, yes or no? Please explain your reasoning. The article mentions ACA so my proposal should not be too off-topic.

I think the discourse about "rights" is part of the problem in US politics, it makes the default mode of reasoning about ideology, rather than outcomes. The government should be in the healthcare business since the nature of the service precludes a functional market.

Of course, one man's "reasoning should be about outcomes, not ideology" is another man's "the ends justify the means"….

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#203

Post by coldtea » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 10:03 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.

>Right but wasn't that advice basically the state of the field at the time?

Then perhaps it wasn't a field that should feel confident enough to give public policy/health suggestions?

>That we know different now doesn't mean the scientists then should have acted on information unavailable to them.

Most of the issue was because BS studies, referenced but not replicated papers, assumptions and the like. Not because they lacked some more precise instruments or such.

It's not like Einstein's theories, which complete Newtons, giving more accurate predictions at edge cases, while Newton's are still accurate enough for everyday calculations (e.g. ballistics).

It's like claiming X (e.g. on fat) and finding out that it's actually -X, or that X is irrelevant.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#204

Post by coding123 » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 10:05 PM UTC

leshow wrote: post #176

coding123 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ABSOLUTELY agree with this, and this is completely lost on people. For every study that says coffee is bad there's 10 more that say it's good, simply because people want it to be good, NOT because it's actually good. The problem is, we humans play right into that as if the number's game actually means something - 1 out of 10 studies says something is bad - the other 9 say it's good. So rather than actually work off…

If you're reading a study who's conclusion is 'x is bad' then I question whether you're actually reading any scientific literature to begin with. No scientist in their right mind would try and support an argument so broad. It sounds like you're just reading some news article's terrible summary of an already terribly summarised abstract.

I agree with what you're saying here. I'm just trying to point out how lay people take in so called "science". In fact most people are just reading headlines and confirming their own bias, and then they tell all their friends that their new coffee drinking habit is confirmed as good by science. All I'm saying is that at the end of the day, the science that was paid for is distilled into sound bites and propaganda for someone's agenda.

(I actually love coffee and just finished my latte).

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#205

Post by guelo » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 10:06 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #199

guelo wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Gu…

Back in 2003 there were plenty of partisan bloggers on both sides of the WMD argument.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#206

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

nsxwolf wrote: post #51

brightball wrote: post #10

Another factor here is when people abuse the word "fact" regularly. If you ever get into a discussion with somebody who claims they've proved their point by citing "facts", then actually follow up on their citations and discover that it doesn't actually say what they think it says it creates an impression of the messenger, not the message. Enough messengers saying the same faulty message over and over and you distrus…

One thing I've noticed related to this - your average global warming skeptic that you talk to in day to day conversations (not entrenched stakeholders on the internet) becomes far more willing to believe in man made climate change once you remind them that they are under no obligation to support or accept any particular policy to mitigate it. But if you tell them they have to give up this or that lifestyle, or pay mo…

On the flip side, a 2015 study found that if there is some incentive for telling the truth, people are more likely to tell the truth. From the abstract of "Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics", Quarterly Journal of Political Science Dec 2015 ( http://www.nowpublishers.com/article/Details/QJPS-14074 ):

""The experiments show that small payments for correct and "don't know" answers sharply diminish the gap between Democrats and Republicans in responses to "partisan" factual questions. Our conclusion is that the apparent gulf in factual beliefs between members of different parties may be more illusory than real. The experiments also bolster and extend a major finding about political knowledge in America: we show (as others have) that Americans know little about politics, but we also show that they often recognize their own lack of knowledge.""

(I should note that I have not actually read this paper, only news articles purporting to describe it.)

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#207

Post by skybrian » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 10:11 PM UTC

leshow wrote: post #169

skybrian wrote: post #159

It's important to remember that most scientific disputes can't be resolved by two uninformed people talking on the Internet. If you can get people to share links to well-written scientific articles, you're doing well, but these disputes can only really be answered by actual scientific discussion between actual experts who take the time to dig into methodology (etc), and maybe not even then; the replication crisis is…

> can only really be answered by actual scientific discussion between actual experts I fundamentally disagree with this. For one, who gets to decide who the 'actual' experts are compared to the experts that aren't actually experts? The stuff you're saying is specious; on the surface it looks plausible but it actually doesn't mean anything. Anyone can develop expertise in a topic of interest if they follow it ardently…

Oh, I totally agree that anyone can be an expert in principle, and yes, you can even be self-taught, but you do have to do the work. On most subjects in the news, we don't study and have no real-world experience. We don't even pick up the phone and talk to people like reporters do.

So, we should admit (to ourselves and others) when we didn't actually study anything, we're just borrowing other people's analyses that we read online. One way I do that is by sharing links.

One of the ways you become an instant (not-really) expert is by relying too much on your supposed "good critical thinking skills." They exist but are overrated - it's not a substitute for studying or for real-world experience.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#208

Post by noir_lord » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 10:17 PM UTC

vacri wrote: post #150

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 -…

It's also wrong. Hunter-gatherer societies are much less concerned about social standing than agrarian ones.

Not that I'm doubting you (I simply don't know) but how do we know that was/is the case?

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#209

Post by redial » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 10:24 PM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #175

jimbokun wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is better than having no citation." Not if the "well regarded source" has a clear motive to lie. "There is probably a higher correlation for a statement from an official state agency being true" Not when the statement conveniently exculpates the agency or high ranking members of the agency of wrongdoing. Then there is probably a higher correlation for a statement being f…

> Not if the "well regarded source" has a clear motive to lie.

Then it is not a well regarded source any more.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#210

Post by noir_lord » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 10:29 PM UTC

rl3 wrote: post #181

sgt101 wrote: post #16

Vaccines are safer for a population, and they are safer for individuals in an unvaccinated population. In a vaccinated population the risks to the individual having a vaccine are low, but non zero. The risk of not having the vaccine may well be lower. The problem is that by not being clear that having a vaccination is an altruistic act with marginal risk but a massive social good the way is left open for claims of du…

The acrimonious and often zealous tone taken by many doesn't help matters either. What you just wrote was nuanced, and there's very little room for nuance recently. Most of what qualifies as discourse today simply degenerates into a shouting match with each side not giving an inch. For example: compulsory vaccination via mandate, coercion, exclusion, or otherwise. While there are compelling motivations to pursue such…

> What you just wrote was nuanced, and there's very little room for nuance recently.

It certainly seems like that has become the case though I wonder if it's always been like that and modern technology just exposes it better.

> "Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance"

I saw a stand up comedian misquote that as "Tyranny is the absence of nuance" which I think I actually preferred.

As for your point on the vaccination thing, yes there are absolutely is a debate somewhere in there about compulsory vaccinations and medical freedom, that debate should always be on-going since in such issues there are rarely absolutes, I wouldn't want them to be settled since settled issues never get revisited.

This is something I've noticed with politics, people hold a position, that position comes to dominance and then they are surprised when it back tracks from their point of view, I'm not sure why they find this suprising it's not like the arrow of progress is one way and while we are talking about the 'arrow of progress' whos arrow and what is progress.

Politics (and the vaccination thing runs slap bang into it) is absolutely messy and chaotic, that's just how the sausage gets made I think.