Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eyewitness testimony is a personal experience that's been well proven to be poorly correlated with others' personal experience of the same event. You may be redefining "fact".
I am not redefining fact, but you are trying to reinterpret a personal experience as something it isn't. A personal experience is not an objective accurate fact about the world. There is no such thing. It can only ever be a bias. Just as an example can usually not be the proof of a theorem, just an indication that the theorem might be true.
Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts
171–175 of 175 posts
Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
You needn't look far—there was a personal attack in your GP comment: "you sound, frankly, like some sort of political zealot". Swipes like that are certainly not respectful, and they're definitely not ok in HN comments. Actually, every single sentence in that comment had some sort of swipe in it. If you don't think that was crossing into personal attack and breaking the site guidelines, you're underestimating the imp…
" you sound, frankly " -addressing their extreme rhetoric, not them. How they come across is different than who they are. Every statement was a "swipe" at their disrespectful and unreasonable arguments, not them as a person. If I'm not allowed to defend my ideas and position, respectfully, in the context of discussion, within site guidelines, what's the purpose of discussion? It's enough that respectful, in-context p…
That's not how internet comments work. If you tell someone they sound like a zealot, you're calling names. If you then say "I didn't mean it about you, only about how you sound", that's a distinction that makes no difference to the receiver, with whom your comment has already landed like a punch.
I'm afraid the problem is that your comments aren't as respectful as you think they are. This is a common problem, as I tried to explain above. Swipes that feel harmless or perfectly kosher to the commenter can easily land with readers, and especially with whomever they're replying to, as aggressive.
Because of this asymmetry, it's easy to end up with a flamewar in which all parties feel aggrieved, like they're the innocent one who did nothing, while the other is the one who behaved badly and escalated. Everyone ends up feeling like they're just defending themselves from unprovoked attack. In reality we're all subject to this cognitive bias, and if we're to avoid having this place go into a downward spiral and burn itself to a crisp, we all need to be extra careful to err on the side of being respectful and editing swipes out of our posts here.
I was writing about this in another context, in case or anyone wants more information: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25995375.
Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts
#173A personal experience is a fact. It is a fact we can be pretty sure of, and we know the context of that fact. Obviously, once we extrapolate from that experienced fact, it becomes bias. A fact that is not a personal experience is difficult to trust. Even if I trust the source of that fact, I am often not sure if I understand the fact properly. Anyone who has ever tried to understand a math theorem might relate. It is…
But anything that is not directly experienced by oneself requires some substantial faith; one cannot possibly redo all science experiments oneself and personally collect evidence.
Therefore one must have faith that the aggregate scientists had no motivation to skew or misrepresent evidence.
As a scientist, I know how reasonable doubting this to be.
Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not redefining fact, but you are trying to reinterpret a personal experience as something it isn't. A personal experience is not an objective accurate fact about the world. There is no such thing. It can only ever be a bias. Just as an example can usually not be the proof of a theorem, just an indication that the theorem might be true.
There are facts. Like: "My laptop will not run indefinitely without power". Right?
Once we've stripped the contextual stuff from your sentence, your sentence is a fact in a similar way to "1 = 1" being a fact. These kinds of facts are not that terribly interesting, because they are context-free, and context is usually the entire point of a fact.
Oh, and I would argue that your laptop does not run indefinitely without power is a very personal experience, at least for me.
Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Including the NYT communist shilling with Walter Durante? That doesn't seem so middle of the road.
Different era. "Up until about the late 70s" makes it sound like this was the eternal state of affairs, but it wasn't. It was a few postwar decades.