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

31–40 of 297 posts

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#31

Post by ncmncm »

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 primary source information indicating Russian interference in the 2016 election was easy to avoid mentioning anywhere.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#33

Post by blueflow »

noacct152437 wrote: post #25
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Quoted post unavailable.

The scientific method exists for a reason, and the "experimentally verifying against reality" part is what makes it better than "fact" "checking".

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#35

Post by blueflow »

tgv wrote: post #20
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.

He is exactly right. The universe as it is and how we humans perceive it are two different worlds. Many words that we consider "abstract" are made up and have no equivalent in the physical universe, but we still use them because it fulfills some purpose for us.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#36

Post by Chris2048 »

stirfish wrote: post #5
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

There's a big difference between "can't go to a restaurant without vaccine" and "must be vaccinated".

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#37

Post by inglor_cz »

noacct152437 wrote: post #25
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Quoted post unavailable.

The very fact of being unbiased, or claiming to be, is quite a big claim and the burden of proof of being unbiased should lie on the side that claims being so.

Because the normal, expected state of things is that humans and the organizations that humans create are biased like hell.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#38

Post by xdennis »

Ma8ee wrote: post #15
throwawayarnty wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because the jobs are less valuable, not due to who's doing them but due to the market (i.e. all of us) seeing them as less valuable.

Teachers and nannies aren't paid a whole lot because they're easily replaceable, not because they're jobs dominated by women.

Doctors used to be exclusively men. Have salaries gone down now that women make up a significant percent of the number of doctors?

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#39

Post by pessimizer »

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…

Their best method is hiding editorial and misinformation with references to earlier stories where the opinion or falsehood is in a (sometimes unattributed) quote, but in the later story is stated as a well-known fact. That's why they're in court with Palin right now.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#40

Post by taf2 »

xdennis wrote: post #29
noacct152437 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Example: Rittenhouse carried a gun. Left wing sources said it was illegal and he was charged with it. Right wing sources (e.g. Viva & Barnes) said it was actually legal because of how the law was written and predicted it would be dismissed by the judge. Politifact factchecked the claim that it was legal as false. The judge dismissed the charge. Politifact updated their page, not to admit they were wrong, but to doubl…

My current biases lead me to agree with your perspective.
Post reply on HN