21–30 of 132 posts
The anti-Q articles are out in full force the last few days... Why is this on HN's front page again?
Anyone pro-rationality is anti-q. It's probably on the top of HN because people voted for it. The software that runs this website is on GitHub, you can go see for yourself. Or maybe it's the lizard people trying to suppress the truth of q?
>Are they quoting a fringe YouTube video (which may have been fact-checked and debunked) We have got to get away from this idea that you can "debunk" something with some authoritative source of truth. That is just not how reality works, and the idea that you can "fact check" and "debunk" your way to a healthy, functioning system of rhetoric is absurd. NO argument has EVER been won by somebody pointing to a third part…
The anti-Q articles are out in full force the last few days... Why is this on HN's front page again?
Anyone pro-rationality is anti-q. It's probably on the top of HN because people voted for it. The software that runs this website is on GitHub, you can go see for yourself. Or maybe it's the lizard people trying to suppress the truth of q?
Go in friendly. Make an effort to assume and embody good will and rationality. The premise of most conspiratorial thinking is very dichotomous. They see themselves as the open minded against dismissive, closed minded opposition. Don't play into this by being dismissive. Be generous instead and assume that they are truth seeking just like you.
Don't be too defensive. If you don't know the "proof" for Gm1m2/r^2, don't pretend you do. Spend time. Be proactive instead. What's the proposed alternative to Gm1m2/r^2 and why do they think that one is true. Instead of seeking out logical holes and dunking, seek out points you can concede. This creates a common ground and gives them permission to concede points too. Intellectual honest is a reciprocal game.
Make it an interesting conversation, not a game you're trying to win. Almost all of their exposure to the topic(s) is either monologue (probably youtube), or ridiculing/dismissive debate. Good faith dialogue will be a rarity. Be that. It often gets epistemological, and that actually is interesting.
Last, remember that almost no conversation ends with a change of mind. That happens later, if at all. What you can "prove" within the conversation is that not all spherists are closed minded, dismissive arseholes.
I'd also recommend doing it. There's a lot to learn here that transposes onto less fringy stuff... especially politics. You likely can't convince Democrat to be a Republican, but you can convince them that some Republicans have reached their conclusions with an open mind, good faith and good intentions. That's the myth which needs to be busted. Other myths are secondary.
Conspiracy theories are about people and their perceptions of other people, primarily. The object of the conspiracy is secondary.
It's just as anti-science to be extremely sceptical of everything as it is to be extremely susceptible. Some people believe in lizard people, and some think China is trying to undermine world security. One may or may not be more or less believable than the other.
Why should I — someone with many of my subjective ideas and opinions try and talk someone else out of their personal beliefs and opinions. And why is the BBC, arbiter of shoddy journalism providing me with guidance on how to do it?
This doesn't seem to offer insight. It's: 1. Talk to them, for hours if you can. 2. Figure out where they're getting their information and see if it's already been debunked. 3. Don't be a jerk. That's not very much 'how', unfortunately.
Actually, all three of those points are things that people (me included) regularly do wrong/don't do when engaging with conspiracy theorists. 1. Brush claims off as unimportant / ignore their messages in group chats instead of giving contra, leading them to misinterpret silence as tacit agreement. 2. If engaging, doing it very shallowly with platitudes like "check your sources" but never going over concrete examples…
As it stands, the article is just "The story of Sebastian's Mum: a victim of conspiracy theories" which is a more fitting title and still interesting, but it's not really a guide, so I also agree with OP, it doesn't really offer insight.
Once I finished the article I was like "is that it?!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone pro-rationality is anti-q. It's probably on the top of HN because people voted for it. The software that runs this website is on GitHub, you can go see for yourself. Or maybe it's the lizard people trying to suppress the truth of q?
>Or maybe it's the lizard people trying to suppress the truth of q? What purpose does mocking this person's question serve? Do you think you're going to convince them of something by making fun of them?
>Are they quoting a fringe YouTube video (which may have been fact-checked and debunked) We have got to get away from this idea that you can "debunk" something with some authoritative source of truth. That is just not how reality works, and the idea that you can "fact check" and "debunk" your way to a healthy, functioning system of rhetoric is absurd. NO argument has EVER been won by somebody pointing to a third part…
TLDR; The discussions around "facts" are totally useless to me. Unless you accept that someone who pushes through their "facts" does nothing else than pushing their worldview onto you. Everyone is free to learn "truth" through their own perception. Other people's "facts" don't support this much.
The new way is actually just to suggest it’s Russian disinformation, and then suddenly that embarrassing thing about your family simply goes away.
>Are they quoting a fringe YouTube video (which may have been fact-checked and debunked) We have got to get away from this idea that you can "debunk" something with some authoritative source of truth. That is just not how reality works, and the idea that you can "fact check" and "debunk" your way to a healthy, functioning system of rhetoric is absurd. NO argument has EVER been won by somebody pointing to a third part…
This comment resonates a lot with me. What I observe is that people mistake "fact" for "truth". A "fact" is the _interpretation_ of something that has happened. While truth is what objectively really happened. Most people can't detach their personal world view from an "absolute" reality and hence their "facts" are biased by the way how they _perceive_ the objective reality. But what's an objective reality? Everyone l…