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

141–150 of 297 posts

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#141

Post by [deleted] »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #53
ncmncm wrote: post #31

The New York Times mastered all this long ago. It is not necessary to lie. All you need is to be selective about what truths you tell, and where. Some goes on the front page, some on page 13, other bits nowhere at all. Hans Blix's UN reports, before the invasion, about Iraq's entire lack of any WMD whatsoever were too important to completely ignore, but were easy enough to bury in a back page. The entire lack of any…

Misrepresenting facts in this way is still a form of lying. Speaking technical truths doesn't change that. Most lies aren't complete fabrications, honestly, even when they do contain a few.

[deleted]

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#143

Post by BitwiseFool »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #140
ncmncm wrote: post #31

The New York Times mastered all this long ago. It is not necessary to lie. All you need is to be selective about what truths you tell, and where. Some goes on the front page, some on page 13, other bits nowhere at all. Hans Blix's UN reports, before the invasion, about Iraq's entire lack of any WMD whatsoever were too important to completely ignore, but were easy enough to bury in a back page. The entire lack of any…

You believe that the NYT has a goal of misleading people with facts?

I do. The NYT is chock full of partisans who seem to have little to no apprehension about framing "the facts" in whatever way helps to shape public opinion in a direction that aligns with their worldview. All the while presenting themselves as some beacon of objective truth and journalistic integrity.

And, they're notoriously obtuse to work with. Remember what they did to Scott Alexander (Slate Star Codex)?

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#144

Post by engineer_22 »

Getting to the truth is really difficult.

For example, in a court of law, where you have a handful of jurors, some witnesses, a carefully curated set of rules, and highly trained professionals guiding the process. Errors are made. The truth is not always found and an innocent person gets locked up or a guilty one walks free.

Epistemology is an ancient practice. In the western tradition this was first pointed out over 2,000 years ago.

Then there is the problem that human beings are not rational actors and it gets a whole lot messier.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#145

Post by stirfish »

chasd00 wrote: post #132
stirfish wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Alice respected personal preferences of people wearing respiratory protection, I've found that a lot of people think of the masks like a gas mask - supposed to keep everything bad out. They are more like the breath guard at the salad bar - keeping you from exhaling droplets six feet in front of you. Bob's mask protects Alice more than it protects Bob.

i've stopped wearing a mask period. risk isn't declared const

There are like 70 ICU beds left in Dallas. May the odds be ever in your favor.

https://covid-texas.csullender.com/?tsa=E

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#146

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #143
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You believe that the NYT has a goal of misleading people with facts?

I do. The NYT is chock full of partisans who seem to have little to no apprehension about framing "the facts" in whatever way helps to shape public opinion in a direction that aligns with their worldview. All the while presenting themselves as some beacon of objective truth and journalistic integrity. And, they're notoriously obtuse to work with. Remember what they did to Scott Alexander (Slate Star Codex)?

Apparently, you see no difference in the goals of "shaping public opinion" and misleading people (with or without facts).

I'm not interested in defending the NYT. I'm just interested in the judgements of other people about the NYT that seem to me to be, shall we say, a little over the top.

And note: I think it would as true of SSC/SA as the NYT that they seek to shape public opinion in a direction that aligns with their worldview. If you speak publically, and don't speak complete jibberish, what else are you doing than seeking to shape public opinion?

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#147

Post by orangecat »

sophacles wrote: post #125
ncmncm wrote: post #31

The New York Times mastered all this long ago. It is not necessary to lie. All you need is to be selective about what truths you tell, and where. Some goes on the front page, some on page 13, other bits nowhere at all. Hans Blix's UN reports, before the invasion, about Iraq's entire lack of any WMD whatsoever were too important to completely ignore, but were easy enough to bury in a back page. The entire lack of any…

Another interesting way to lie with facts is to use one scapegoat as a factual example, but ignore all the other factual examples. For instance, right wing hacks love to point out the flaws in NYT over and over on thier quest for "media is bad", while ignoring: * they too are media * there are just as many examples in their own organization and almost every other *choosing to play dumb that they choose the examples a…

use one scapegoat as a factual example

For instance, right wing hacks

Hmm

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#148

Post by jimmydoreornot »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #146
BitwiseFool wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do. The NYT is chock full of partisans who seem to have little to no apprehension about framing "the facts" in whatever way helps to shape public opinion in a direction that aligns with their worldview. All the while presenting themselves as some beacon of objective truth and journalistic integrity. And, they're notoriously obtuse to work with. Remember what they did to Scott Alexander (Slate Star Codex)?

Apparently, you see no difference in the goals of "shaping public opinion" and misleading people (with or without facts). I'm not interested in defending the NYT. I'm just interested in the judgements of other people about the NYT that seem to me to be, shall we say, a little over the top. And note: I think it would as true of SSC/SA as the NYT that they seek to shape public opinion in a direction that aligns with th…

I concur that the term "shaping public opinion" is more accurate in many cases, but not in others. There are enough stories where the author clearly understood something about the story and attempted to convey something else to the reader for political/cultural effect. For example, not reporting on the race of a black perpetrator but always reporting on the race of a black victim.

There is a less activist way of presenting the news that doesn't attempt to "shape public opinion". I'm old enough to remember Walter Cronkite. I've read (some of) Manufacturing Consent. Today's media in America (almost all of it, NYT being no exception) heavily shapes public opinion, turning news reporting into a political battleground.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#149

Post by BitwiseFool »

Chris2048 wrote: post #26
zekica wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

It's not even limitations. It's studies that are non-peer reviewed, or non-replicated (not failed to replicate sometimes, just hasn't yet been replicated). Especially certain subjects where poor, biased, studies seem rife. They take a study and run with it because a scientific study is "science", even if a study is just one step one the way to an accepted truth. Sometimes is more explicit, cherry-picking certain stud…

Not all science is equal, either. A paper published in an evolutionary psychology journal is not as valid as the theory of evolution itself. Yet, we tend to lump everything in under "Science".

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#150

Post by hunterb123 »

blueflow wrote: post #139
hunterb123 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That supports what @tgv is saying, not the quote. > "There are no facts, only interpretations. Too absolute, some things are objective, some subjective. Not everything is subjective, like he's implying. The quote sounds deep, but it falls apart to 3rd grade reading comprehension.

I was more arguing his post. In hindsight, i think he interpreted the "have no physical equivalent" part differently. I meant it more like, that what the words are referring to, the concepts behind it. Not the words itself. I'm still saying Nietzsche is right with the quote. That he is right does not forbid to mentally work with the concept of objectivity. See it more of an invitation to question the objectivity of e…

> That he is right does not forbid to mentally work with the concept of objectivity.

Yeah, that doesn't mean anything. The quote taken directly makes it wrong as it conflicts with objectivity, any other interpretation makes it edgy, fanciful, and pointless, as GP pointed out.

> See it more of an invitation to question the objectivity of everything.

That's what everyone already does when they reason through something objective. The quote is un-profound in that interpretation (which imo is reaching)

Post reply on HN