61–70 of 132 posts
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the interesting parallel with religion here. Belief in a deity is also --in some eyes-- totally irrational. It can cause similar harm and sometimes also divides families, e.g. when people want to 'get out': Jehovas witnesses, scientology, ... Let's face it, collectively, we're not as rational as we like to believe.
>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…
A fact-check doesn't need to be done by an authority. Pointing out logic errors (i.e. correlation != causation, loops in chain of reasoning) in the argumentation can be done by anyone, and be understood by anyone willing to think.
I mean (bear with me), you say the coronavirus is real because scientists say so? Which scientists? You're using weasel words and you're appealing to authority.
Hard to read this with a straight face, after Snowden and Julian Assange. Snowden is still in exile, and Assange is tortured in Jail. This is the price for proving deep state "conspiracy theories".
The article is about the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> A "fact" is the _interpretation_ of something that has happened. This is not how I'd understand it. From Cambridge dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact , "something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information"
* "something that is known to have happened" - Yep, 9/11 did happen. And some people say they KNOW that it was an inside job.
* "especially something for which proof exists" - job of the CIA is to exactly prevent such a thing, they did not.
* "or about which there is information" - come on. I won't link conspiracy theory websites here.
So, in the end, your definition does not contradict that someone calls the 9/11 conspiracy theory a "fact".
The first point is debatable - but then you could apply the same logic to WW1 or any other history event.
Therefore, I don't like your definition of fact.
I've been in these conversations several times recently. My tips: 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…
(But then again, that didn't end well for Socrates - or did it?)
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the interesting parallel with religion here. Belief in a deity is also --in some eyes-- totally irrational. It can cause similar harm and sometimes also divides families, e.g. when people want to 'get out': Jehovas witnesses, scientology, ... Let's face it, collectively, we're not as rational as we like to believe.
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?
But why the intense focus on Q? There is a massive amount of bullshit out there. Why is Q considered more harmful than say 9/11 or Flat Earth conspiracy theories, or any religious beliefs for that matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A fact-check doesn't need to be done by an authority. Pointing out logic errors (i.e. correlation != causation, loops in chain of reasoning) in the argumentation can be done by anyone, and be understood by anyone willing to think.
> Pointing out logic errors ... can be done by anyone, and be understood by anyone willing to think. Human beings are social animals, and people are likely to bristle at someone trying to poke holes in their worldview in that way, unless they have already established some kind of rapport. (Even the Socratic method expressed in Plato’s dialogues was practiced on people who belonged to the same city-state and social cl…
Very interesting. I guess by creating a network of trust, they can begin to trust information from outside sources.
Where can I find information about this method? I have a friend that is deeply into conspiracy theories. The "head-on" approach has not worked, any advice appreciated. It's sad to hear that people give up on life-long relationships, I know I have a limit too but I try to remember who they were and recognize that they have good hearts but unhealthy minds.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the interesting parallel with religion here. Belief in a deity is also --in some eyes-- totally irrational. It can cause similar harm and sometimes also divides families, e.g. when people want to 'get out': Jehovas witnesses, scientology, ... Let's face it, collectively, we're not as rational as we like to believe.
I mean one logical, rational argument used is that the universe and life is incredibly complicated, we as "mere" humans cannot create it, and it's incredibly unlikely humans would develop like we did. Therefore, there must be intelligent design behind it.
See? Rational and logical thought. Dismissing people who think differently as being irrational is just alienating and pushing them away, entrenching them even more if you go in with a judgment and mindset like that. It would make you scoff at "these people", because they're irrational unlike you, the epitome of rationality and logical thought.
TL;DR, assume the "other side" is just as smart and rational as you are, they just have different ideas.