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

291–297 of 297 posts

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#291

Post by tablespoon »

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)?

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

What do you mean? All they were going to do was mention his name, which is a very normal thing to do.

The obtuse bit was actually the expectation of Alexander and various SSC fans that they could impose idiosyncratic rules on others that they were in no position to enforce.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#292

Post by croon »

inglor_cz wrote: post #286
croon wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You consider "being unbiased" as a default in a world where most people are biased. Again, it's not about being default, it's about not being possible to prove, which you asked for in your original post. The number of people or publications being 1% or 99% is irrelevant. If someone is biased, it's trivial to point out how, and if they're not, it's impossible to prove so. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%2…

Try solving any court case with flow charts. In many situations, you will have contradicting evidence and you will have to decide the case anyway.

Logic is not complicared in your scenario either, but merely the veracity of the variables.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#293

Post by donw »

maximus-decimus wrote: post #96
donw wrote: post #2

The problem is policy. Imagine two friends, Alice and Bob. Alice thinks COVID is not a problem. Doesn't mask, hasn't had a single shot, all the rest. Bob is terrified of COVID. Masks up at home, space bubble helmet outside, all the rest. The only outcome that works is Alice and Bob agreeing that they have different risk preferences. That they each should live their lives in accordance, but that they have no right to…

What if Bob is afraid of other people firing their guns in their backyard because he doesn't want to get killed by stray bullets. It just doesn't work anymore because the risk Alice and Bob are taking depends more on what other people do than what they themselves do. After all Bob isn't gonna kill himself with a stray bullet. Bob not shooting guns but Alice shooting guns while pointing in Bob's house direction doesn'…

Anybody unable to grasp the difference between "virus with a sub-1% mortality rate for healthy working-age adults" and "inbound suppressive fire" does not get a seat at the risk-discussion table.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#294

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #288
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly encounter the ones in Germany, so I doubt it would be much use to you. For example correctiv.org or even https://www.tagesschau.de/faktenfinder/ which is from the public TV network (government funding). I remember trying to verify the claims about "Trump lied x zillion times" at some US fact checking portal (I think from some major newspaper, maybe NYT or Washington Post), and all the supposed "lies" were al…

And your research let you come to the conclusion that Donald Trump wasn't, even by politician standards, a liar? Possibly you've commuted in from a parallel dimension, and that's why you are suspicious of these fact checkers claiming "the sky is blue" and other obvious lies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Dona...

It seems unlikely to me that those claims of thousands of lies and the "firehose of lies" have much merit.

Wikipedia does not really have any bearing on it, as it only cites other sources.

Maybe instead of claiming thousands of lies, his enemies should focus on a couple of especially severe lies and scandals and make a good case about it.

However, most of the times when I looked into such stories, they turned out to be bullshit. So what am I supposed to believe? Obviously I can't fact check 30000 claimed lies. If I read Anti-Trump stories, I would expect his enemies to bring up the worst they have. If those turn out to be bullshit, what is left?

How is the Russian collusion accusation coming along, anyway?

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#295

Post by emmelaich »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #221
emmelaich wrote: post #166

But what context is important or relevant or true? It's turtles all the way down. What we need is humility and good faith.

Good faith is part of the problem; you trust that a headline, an article, a summary etc acts in good faith, that you can trust journalists and the like. But they often have an Agenda, pushing a certain narrative or a certain political goal. I mean, even when an article ticks all the boxes for being well researched, factually correct, neutral in language, even then it can be misleading for not having a counter-point (…

Good faith cannot be part of the problem, by definition.

I'll give you naivety though.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#296

Post by rob_c »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #218
rob_c wrote: post #213

"If you want to lie with facts, use statistics." - anonymous

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statist... 100% of commenters to your comment at the time of writing this comment linked to wikipedia, STATISTICALLY PROVING that they are shills of Big Wiki.

And I'm still chuckling at this

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#297

Post by powerslacker »

_0ffh wrote: post #284
powerslacker wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it morally superior to protect human life?

If we don't make it off this planet, it's more than likely that nothing else will. "Why is it morally superior to protect life?" Because I like it. Because it's life's prime directive to perpetuate life and I am a lifeform. Mumblemumblegod. Pick whatever you like. :)

You either have a coherent answer or you don't. Objective morality either exists or it doesn't.
Post reply on HN