Live data from Hacker News

Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

math.columbia.edu

41–50 of 145 posts

Re: Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

#41

[flagged]

The link doesn’t work for me, but based off your comment: I can accept that mainstream journalism is generally in decline in various ways. But it is curious they chose to single out WSJ, which is considered more balanced and less biased than NYT or whoever else ( https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart ). Or is it just to point out that even WSJ is subject to this issue?

It's addressing an article published by the Wall Street Journal. It's not singling it out as a uniquely bad publication or saying any other popular publication is doing better.

Re: Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

#44
A couple thoughts:

- The author of this clearly disliked the WSJ article, but I don't think they did a good job of explaining why. I'm not saying they're wrong, but this article is very emotional without much concrete criticism. I assume 'woit' is someone famous I should know about but don't and he or she is assuming people will find this sufficient simply because they wrote it. But for someone like me who doesn't know who woit is, it doesn't land as a result.

- I enjoyed the WSJ article and (perhaps naively) thought it did an acceptable job shedding light on an interesting phenomenon that would fly under the radar for many readers. I'd be interested in seeing credible criticism of it, but the article in question declares that providing that information would be "hopeless". In the next sentence, they mention experiencing mental health issues.

- On theoretical physics, my thought, for whatever it may be worth, is that a verified theory of quantum gravity is simply one of the hardest scientific questions of all time. It's something that we should expect would take the entire world hundreds of years to solve. So I'm not at all unnerved or worried about what appears from the outside to be a slow rate of progress. We are talking about precisely understanding phenomena that generally only occur in the most extreme conditions presently imaginable in the universe. That's going to take time to unravel -- and it may not even be possible, just like a dog is never going to understand general relativity.

Re: Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

#45
post #20

[flagged]

When the media stops holding people in power accountable, they are no different than idiots with megaphones. The press has special rights because accountability and informing the public was supposed to be their job.

Might be worth asking: Why would “the media” do this? Over thousands of outlets?

Re: Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

#46
post #37

That is a lot of words to communicate a very simple truth: WSJ is trash. (so is NYT btw)

You’ll be downvoted for this and my comment will be marked as off topic or whatever but you capture the gist of it. These news outlets shouldn’t delve into anything requiring the use of word “epistemic” their “collapse”, when they fail to report on much more basic things.

Re: Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

#47

[flagged]

The link doesn’t work for me, but based off your comment: I can accept that mainstream journalism is generally in decline in various ways. But it is curious they chose to single out WSJ, which is considered more balanced and less biased than NYT or whoever else ( https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart ). Or is it just to point out that even WSJ is subject to this issue?

Presumably because WSJ is the one who wrote the article this person found objectionable. NYT did not write such an article.

They did say "The epistemic collapse is total when traditional high-quality information sources like the Wall Street Journal", so there is probably an element of attacking what is high quality though. [I dont follow us media landscape, i have no idea what the relative quality of various papers are or if you are correct about NYT]

That said, more generally when constructing arguments, you generally want to attack the strongest version of your opponents argument. Attacking a paper known for being higher quality is always going to be more convincing than attacking a paper that is less known.

Re: Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

#48
By coincidence I just listened to the Decoding the Gurus episode on Sabine https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/sabine-hosse...

I also just finished a four-and-a-half-hour defence of modern physics by Sean Carroll which has some really good counterarguments in it, as well as a whirlwind history of the last century in physics. https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2023/07/31/245-...

I am conscious of the irony of responding to this post by posting podcasts.

Re: Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

#49

The WSJ and other outlets are also completely failing at understanding the "chronically online" messaging from recent mass shooters, and are unintentionally spreading the memes and attention that the perpetrators are seeking out, thus feeding the cycle. They seem to be seriously lacking experts on anything these days... culture, physics and anything between.

The media has been failing at this since Columbine, if not before. They don't take the contagion effect nearly as seriously as they ought to, given that so many shooters have been documented now as idolizing previous shooters.

When you give a maladjusted freak a script that's basically "get your hands on this specific model rifle, go to this specific type of place, kill a bunch of people, and we'll make you famous," is it any wonder it happens over and over again? They show their photo, they name them down to their middle name, they write articles about whatever loony manifesto they wrote . . . none of this should be newsworthy, and it all feeds the social phenomenon.

Post reply on HN