51–60 of 132 posts
This article offers zero useful advice on how to overcome this extremely pernicious, scary and increasingly prevalent problem.
>Are they quoting a fringe YouTube video (which may have been fact-checked and debunked) We have got to get away from this idea that you can "debunk" something with some authoritative source of truth. That is just not how reality works, and the idea that you can "fact check" and "debunk" your way to a healthy, functioning system of rhetoric is absurd. NO argument has EVER been won by somebody pointing to a third part…
A fact-check doesn't need to be done by an authority. Pointing out logic errors (i.e. correlation != causation, loops in chain of reasoning) in the argumentation can be done by anyone, and be understood by anyone willing to think.
Human beings are social animals, and people are likely to bristle at someone trying to poke holes in their worldview in that way, unless they have already established some kind of rapport. (Even the Socratic method expressed in Plato’s dialogues was practiced on people who belonged to the same city-state and social class as Socrates – and he eventually got charged and sentenced to death regardless.)
This is why one of the methods advocated for in curing people of conspiracy-theory thinking, is providing them a warm and supportive atmosphere where they feel part of a community, and not trying to challenge their ideas head on.
This is clearly about the war in Iraq. And yes the victims are not simply the millions of lives destroyed in the region or the thousands of lives destroyed in western countries; but the victim is the truth itself and the population's trust in authority.
Are you one of those conspiracy theorists who believe we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for oil and to feed our war machine and not because of 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction? FACT mainstream media published all kinds of articles saying Hussein had WMDs! Are you trying to say our government and a compliant media lies to us to get us to accept actions that go against our interest?
The anti-Q articles are out in full force the last few days... Why is this on HN's front page again?
Anyone pro-rationality is anti-q. It's probably on the top of HN because people voted for it. The software that runs this website is on GitHub, you can go see for yourself. Or maybe it's the lizard people trying to suppress the truth of q?
>Are they quoting a fringe YouTube video (which may have been fact-checked and debunked) We have got to get away from this idea that you can "debunk" something with some authoritative source of truth. That is just not how reality works, and the idea that you can "fact check" and "debunk" your way to a healthy, functioning system of rhetoric is absurd. NO argument has EVER been won by somebody pointing to a third part…
>Are they quoting a fringe YouTube video (which may have been fact-checked and debunked) We have got to get away from this idea that you can "debunk" something with some authoritative source of truth. That is just not how reality works, and the idea that you can "fact check" and "debunk" your way to a healthy, functioning system of rhetoric is absurd. NO argument has EVER been won by somebody pointing to a third part…
Exactly, my share of nuts in my feed are already convinced fact checkers are in the conspiracy, too. Personally, I only try to have instructive discussion if I care about the person. Then it's time well spent. Strangers on the Internet? No, thanks.
>Are they quoting a fringe YouTube video (which may have been fact-checked and debunked) We have got to get away from this idea that you can "debunk" something with some authoritative source of truth. That is just not how reality works, and the idea that you can "fact check" and "debunk" your way to a healthy, functioning system of rhetoric is absurd. NO argument has EVER been won by somebody pointing to a third part…
I don't think the article claims that.
How I understood it, a person at risk might be unaware that a video they watched has been proven false; in that context letting them know about it might help them.
Later the article says "always listen to people's deeper concerns".
>Are they quoting a fringe YouTube video (which may have been fact-checked and debunked) We have got to get away from this idea that you can "debunk" something with some authoritative source of truth. That is just not how reality works, and the idea that you can "fact check" and "debunk" your way to a healthy, functioning system of rhetoric is absurd. NO argument has EVER been won by somebody pointing to a third part…
There's an old quote that I'm probably butchering, and I don't know who said it, but it goes along the lines of "you can't use logic to get someone out of something they didn't use logic to get themselves into." I used to be someone who would perpetually argue with friends and family members who believed in all this conspiracy crap, usually devolving to me sending links to Snopes and Politifact and whatnot, but I lat…
I think attacking things from the side by targeting how to think critically rather than any specific topic is the best bet. It allows people to learn ideas without being immediately defensive.
Lesswrong is mostly this.
Pretty much everything you said also applies to religion which the vast majority of people in the world believe (in some capacity).
Believing clearly wrong things is a part of humanity - arguably the default - and people have to learn to overcome it.
>Are they quoting a fringe YouTube video (which may have been fact-checked and debunked) We have got to get away from this idea that you can "debunk" something with some authoritative source of truth. That is just not how reality works, and the idea that you can "fact check" and "debunk" your way to a healthy, functioning system of rhetoric is absurd. NO argument has EVER been won by somebody pointing to a third part…