Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The death of a public intellectual

thmsmlr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 374 posts

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#61

Post by hiAndrewQuinn »

RagnarD wrote: post #41

"You’re basis for truth often relies on authority of your source." No. This is such a common logical error that it has an old name: Argumentum ad Verecundiam (often shortened to Verecundiam, or Appeal to Authority in English.) Saying "I know this because authority X said so" - you don't know it at all. It has the epistemological status of outright faith. What counts is the connection of statements to reality and thei…

Everything boils down to faith eventually, though. Even trusting the evidence of your senses is a kind of faith.

So the logical error isn't an epistemological error in all cases - you can see it as someone trying to minimize some distance metric they are operating on between Reality As It Is and Reality As I Know It by making a single hop to someone who, it is believed, has already done a lot of work investigating the ground claims.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#62

Post by itsnotabtmoney »

This post treats the constant stream of "new public intellectuals" as some kind of organic, natural phenomenon. It's not, these people reach the top of your YouTube feed because someone wants them there. There's nothing organic about Eric Weinstein or Lex Fridman.

People on this site are quick to call something "enshittification" when there are some obvious cash-grabs by megacorps, but are reluctant to admit that the algorithm feeding you content is manipulating you in a similar way.

> And take note when one doesn’t fall, study them the hardest.

I did, and they subsequently got banned from every social network, and even their website isn't linkable from Facebook or X or YouTube.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#63

Post by s1artibartfast »

nerdponx wrote: post #31
busterarm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he disagrees with the idea of compelled speech and that conflicts with how some people self-identify.

Yes, that's precisely why I don't like him, thank you for articulating it so clearly! I want to compel the people around me to speak a certain way, and I have built an identity around that, and Peterson's cutting social commentary shakes me to my core.

Why don't you like him then?

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#65

Post by hnreport »

esafak wrote: post #2

Develop interests of your own and go beyond public intellectuals. Don't let all your information get recommended to you, only some of it. Reach out for the rest yourself. Books are very efficient at conveying information, so read some to get a lay of the land before going deep. Also, consider that there is more to know than you have time to learn, so be selective. Are you going to act on it? Is it going to give you p…

We are vulnerable to this attack strategy in books as well. The author can lull you in with a compelling concept, but you can soon realize they weren’t able to extrapolate their thesis beyond one chapter (if that).

It’s probably the most mature moment I had as a reader, to be able to look at any book and be comfortable judging the pacing/vibe of it with regard to me. If a book isn’t vibing with you (you feel like the author is forcing a hot take), then don’t read the book. It’s no different than a date, if the person creeps you out, bounce.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#66

Post by graphe »

I'm surprised he didn't mention lex Friedman or Joe rogan. The people I admire on YouTube still continue to resonate with me. If anyone is looking for 'leftist Jordan Peterson' I suggestion Gabor mate, he's a much more holistic and less authoritarian, and continues to inspire me.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#67

Post by TheAceOfHearts »

RagnarD wrote: post #41

"You’re basis for truth often relies on authority of your source." No. This is such a common logical error that it has an old name: Argumentum ad Verecundiam (often shortened to Verecundiam, or Appeal to Authority in English.) Saying "I know this because authority X said so" - you don't know it at all. It has the epistemological status of outright faith. What counts is the connection of statements to reality and thei…

This was one of my complaints in college. You're taught a ton of things from a position of authority, but you never get a full explanation of how those things were discovered of how you could prove them yourself.

I think it would be cool if we taught kids how things work along with how they can prove it for themselves. Currently the only field which encourages you to prove things for yourself is maths, and proofs aren't even given that much importance.

Even with softer topics like history, I think it should be essential to include context explaining how we know these things to be true. On what evidence are these beliefs based on? What is the level of epistemic uncertainty of the information we're being given?

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#68

Post by quickthrower2 »

RagnarD wrote: post #41

"You’re basis for truth often relies on authority of your source." No. This is such a common logical error that it has an old name: Argumentum ad Verecundiam (often shortened to Verecundiam, or Appeal to Authority in English.) Saying "I know this because authority X said so" - you don't know it at all. It has the epistemological status of outright faith. What counts is the connection of statements to reality and thei…

TFA agrees with you, and explains why experts can disappoint.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#69

Post by inglor_cz »

Dudelander wrote: post #56
RagnarD wrote: post #41

"You’re basis for truth often relies on authority of your source." No. This is such a common logical error that it has an old name: Argumentum ad Verecundiam (often shortened to Verecundiam, or Appeal to Authority in English.) Saying "I know this because authority X said so" - you don't know it at all. It has the epistemological status of outright faith. What counts is the connection of statements to reality and thei…

If it worked that way, the Gallic Wars wouldn't have happened because Caesar's account would be considered "argument from authority".

This is a very confused argument.

Historians know that they can't take written sources at face value. For them, Caesar's account of the Gallic Wars is just another piece of evidence, not a Definite Proof of Everything That Was.

Caesar is not considered an infallible authority, but that has no bearing on the general consensus that Gallic Wars actually took place.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#70

Post by hnreport »

itsnotabtmoney wrote: post #62

This post treats the constant stream of "new public intellectuals" as some kind of organic, natural phenomenon. It's not, these people reach the top of your YouTube feed because someone wants them there. There's nothing organic about Eric Weinstein or Lex Fridman. People on this site are quick to call something "enshittification" when there are some obvious cash-grabs by megacorps, but are reluctant to admit that the…

There's nothing organic about Eric Weinstein or Lex Fridman.

Do we know how this was done before? Let’s say you are a hit broadcast network, and you have these new hit shows called Friends and Family Matters. What’s your plan as a broadcast company now?

Should the TV company organically wait to see what kind of TV shows audiences want to see? Or should they create 10 shows that copy Friends and Family Matters, each targeting a different demo (you know, like black people, or women).

So, if you want to build a loose network of content creators, with your fulcrum being like a Rogan for the general demographic, with a contrived character like a Friedman being the “nerd”. So the loop here is you cast a wide net with Rogan, then niche them down to your Jocko’s, Friedman’s, etc.

Rogan doesn’t disclose when he does Ad drops anymore either. So he’s a really bad actor at this point.

Like yeah Joe, you just talked about McDonalds for 10 minutes for free again on an episode with 10 million listeners huh? Oh, talking about the latest movie in theaters again? As if that’s not a 5 minute ‘hey McDonald’s, we can leave this 7 minutes in about how your Coca Cola tastes better than regular Coca Cola, or we can just edit it out. I’m sorry? Did we say edit out? What we meant was, how about like 30 million for 6 month campaign? No? Okay, see ya. No, we never recorded anything about McDonald’s soda tasting better.

Post reply on HN