Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Mislead with Facts

consilienceproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 297 posts

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#11

Post by Nursie »

> What if we really wanted to understand what was going on in a way that accounted for all the facts and their various frames and interpretations?

Then we are demonstrating a level of good faith and interest that seems missing in most discourse.

I like the drive behind this - to really get to the bottom of things and promote rational comprehension rather than have people simply sniping at each other with misunderstood datapoints - but I'm not sure a lot of the people who are engaging in such behaviour are really that interested. As mentioned in the article, what they are really after is ammunition.

Still, I welcome this, as it's far better than just throwing up our collective hands and deciding any attempt to improve the quality of public discussion is necessarily censorship.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#12

Post by metaphor »

beachy wrote: post #4

This article is desperately in need of some examples. I can't believe there isn't one.

I thought the generalized examples here[1] were objectively adequate.

Using real world examples in this context strikes me as dancing into a mine field and a dismissal of the nuanced exercise towards understanding that the author suggests[2].

[1] https://consilienceproject.org/content/images/size/w1000/202...

[2] https://consilienceproject.org/content/images/size/w1000/202...

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#13

Post by throwawayarnty »

beachy wrote: post #4

This article is desperately in need of some examples. I can't believe there isn't one.

One example: people who simply state “women make 82 cents for every dollar a man makes” to imply the advantage of being a man vs a woman.

The reality of how this number is calculated (eg averages across professions, even though men and women tend to work different professions, part time vs full time is not taken into account) suggests the conclusions that come from this 82 cents number is more nuanced than the initial statement.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#14

Post by darawk »

I love the idea of this article, but it doesn't address the reason things are the way they are. Facts get checked for literal accuracy because that's what's easy to actually do in a reasonably unbiased way. We stop there not because that's all we want, but because everything after that is too messy to even come close to systematizing.

If they've got a well thought out framework for systematizing high quality contextualization, i'd love to hear about it, though.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#15

Post by Ma8ee »

throwawayarnty wrote: post #13
beachy wrote: post #4

This article is desperately in need of some examples. I can't believe there isn't one.

One example: people who simply state “women make 82 cents for every dollar a man makes” to imply the advantage of being a man vs a woman. The reality of how this number is calculated (eg averages across professions, even though men and women tend to work different professions, part time vs full time is not taken into account) suggests the conclusions that come from this 82 cents number is more nuanced than the initia…

And then you can take another step and ask why professions dominated by women in general are less well paid than similar ones dominated by men, and why it is mostly women who reduce their work hours while the kids are small and why not more men do the same.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#16

Post by zekica »

oreally wrote: post #6

"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche

Scientific method tries to get as close as possible to facts.

The issue is that popular press and "influencers" ignore limitations in studies and always tell just their interpretations while pointing to "the science".

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#17

Post by TuringTest »

Adversarial wielding of facts could be the basis for a new model of public knowledge, one that corrects the shortcomings of current news media and social networks.

Causal mapping [1] websites can aggregate the back and forth of heated discussions, eliminating emotional responses and distilling the core ideas of each opposing position. Such compilation of facts an argument in a readable, neutral format (e.g. see Kialo)[2] could work like the academic debates of old, allowing facts to be analysed in context and the validity of arguments to be tested on their own merits, not on their emotional appeal.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causal_mapping_softwar...

[2] https://www.kialo.com/

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#18

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

darawk wrote: post #14

I love the idea of this article, but it doesn't address the reason things are the way they are. Facts get checked for literal accuracy because that's what's easy to actually do in a reasonably unbiased way. We stop there not because that's all we want, but because everything after that is too messy to even come close to systematizing. If they've got a well thought out framework for systematizing high quality contextu…

All the "fact checking" sites I am aware of are heavily biased. It seems very unlikely that they actually try to be unbiased in their checking. It already starts with selecting the facts they check (cherry picking).

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#19

Post by cto_of_antifa »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #18
darawk wrote: post #14

I love the idea of this article, but it doesn't address the reason things are the way they are. Facts get checked for literal accuracy because that's what's easy to actually do in a reasonably unbiased way. We stop there not because that's all we want, but because everything after that is too messy to even come close to systematizing. If they've got a well thought out framework for systematizing high quality contextu…

All the "fact checking" sites I am aware of are heavily biased. It seems very unlikely that they actually try to be unbiased in their checking. It already starts with selecting the facts they check (cherry picking).

No post body was provided.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#20

Post by tgv »

oreally wrote: post #6

"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche

Which in and of itself doesn't mean anything. At face value, it promotes extreme relativism, but contradicts itself. Nietzsche as the proto-edge-lord.
Post reply on HN