Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#81

Post by ch4s3 » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 6:45 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #15

brightball wrote: post #10

Another factor here is when people abuse the word "fact" regularly. If you ever get into a discussion with somebody who claims they've proved their point by citing "facts", then actually follow up on their citations and discover that it doesn't actually say what they think it says it creates an impression of the messenger, not the message. Enough messengers saying the same faulty message over and over and you distrus…

> then actually follow up on their citations Not to mention that citations are not all they are touted to be. Just because something has been written by someone somewhere doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has been published on a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has the consensus opinion doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Ju…

This is the classic boiling down of empiricism, not to make a judgement either way. But, if anyone is interested in the philosophy that coldtea is espousing here, check out this treatment of Rationalism vs. Empiricism https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/#1...

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#82

Post by komali2 » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 6:47 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #18

> The fact that both we and it survive proves that it must have some adaptive function No, no, no, absolutely not, no, it doesn't. No. A feature can maintain itself in a population for a number of reasons: - it's neutral or not detrimental enough to drive affected individuals to extinction (ie, to get them killed before they have a chance to reproduce) - it's linked to some other trait that provides actual benefits -…

The only problem I take with the "write only" mindset is that memory has been demonstrated to be able to be "changed" after the fact - i.e. making a person "remember" that the color of the truck was red, even though it was blue and they had correctly stated remembering it being blue.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#83

Post by brightball » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 6:49 PM UTC

luhn wrote: post #40

brightball wrote: post #10

Another factor here is when people abuse the word "fact" regularly. If you ever get into a discussion with somebody who claims they've proved their point by citing "facts", then actually follow up on their citations and discover that it doesn't actually say what they think it says it creates an impression of the messenger, not the message. Enough messengers saying the same faulty message over and over and you distrus…

> I seem to remember a github repo that was posted to HN a couple of years back that did exactly that. They showed the same data set and presented 3 different ways with 3 entirely different conclusions. Does anybody remember what repository this was? I'd be interested in seeing it.

Found it: https://guns-vs-homicide.github.io/

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#84

Post by brightball » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 6:50 PM UTC

conistonwater wrote: post #59

brightball wrote: post #10

Another factor here is when people abuse the word "fact" regularly. If you ever get into a discussion with somebody who claims they've proved their point by citing "facts", then actually follow up on their citations and discover that it doesn't actually say what they think it says it creates an impression of the messenger, not the message. Enough messengers saying the same faulty message over and over and you distrus…

> Enough messengers saying the same faulty message over and over and you distrust the message just because it's been repeated so often. This seems like a really bad heuristic: it will mislead you any time the consensus opinion actually managed to get it right. It also leaves you wide open to confirmation bias.

Exactly. People only have so much time to dig in and verify everything they hear on the internet, so the result is that you get enough bad information from a labeled group of people that you save your time by dismissing it.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#85

Post by coldtea » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 6:52 PM UTC

meheleventyone wrote: post #66

coding123 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ABSOLUTELY agree with this, and this is completely lost on people. For every study that says coffee is bad there's 10 more that say it's good, simply because people want it to be good, NOT because it's actually good. The problem is, we humans play right into that as if the number's game actually means something - 1 out of 10 studies says something is bad - the other 9 say it's good. So rather than actually work off…

Isn't this more a distinction between science and science reporting. Coffee is complex and interacts in ways that can be described as good and bad. The press reporting blows by the wind of the press release that day. Hence the Daily Mail and others reporting lots of common things both causing and protecting us against cancer.

>Isn't this more a distinction between science and science reporting

In a way yes, but if we include the summaries of findings that scientists deliver to the public/governments/etc as "science reporting", then science reporting is 100% of science as we know it (unless we happen to practice it).

Consider dietary advice that has since found to be BS, that was passed in the 70s and 80s as "scientific fact", not just by the press, but by scientific advisory boards (to governments etc) comprised by actual scientists.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#86

Post by betenoire » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 6:55 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #18

> The fact that both we and it survive proves that it must have some adaptive function No, no, no, absolutely not, no, it doesn't. No. A feature can maintain itself in a population for a number of reasons: - it's neutral or not detrimental enough to drive affected individuals to extinction (ie, to get them killed before they have a chance to reproduce) - it's linked to some other trait that provides actual benefits -…

I don't share your interpretation at all. The gist is that humans are not rational computing machines. And that we can't expect each other to respond rationally to every word spoken or act observed.

If you don't see the merit in winning arguments over being correct, uh... I dunno broaden your social circle maybe?

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#87

Post by dllthomas » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 6:55 PM UTC

conistonwater wrote: post #59

brightball wrote: post #10

Another factor here is when people abuse the word "fact" regularly. If you ever get into a discussion with somebody who claims they've proved their point by citing "facts", then actually follow up on their citations and discover that it doesn't actually say what they think it says it creates an impression of the messenger, not the message. Enough messengers saying the same faulty message over and over and you distrus…

> Enough messengers saying the same faulty message over and over and you distrust the message just because it's been repeated so often. This seems like a really bad heuristic: it will mislead you any time the consensus opinion actually managed to get it right. It also leaves you wide open to confirmation bias.

Right. There are infinite flawed arguments for every correct position. Just because one of them got mind share doesn't mean there are no other, good arguments. One would hope that correctness of an argument would have a strong correlation with its memetic success, but it doesn't seem so.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#88

Post by crpatino » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 6:55 PM UTC

sgt101 wrote: post #16

Vaccines are safer for a population, and they are safer for individuals in an unvaccinated population. In a vaccinated population the risks to the individual having a vaccine are low, but non zero. The risk of not having the vaccine may well be lower. The problem is that by not being clear that having a vaccination is an altruistic act with marginal risk but a massive social good the way is left open for claims of du…

I would upvote you twice if I could. The anti-science crowd and not idiots, but rather moderately intelligent individuals that go bersek after catching the Science spokeperson's oversimplifications and/or white lies.

Fool me once and it's your fault, fool me twice and it is mine.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#89

Post by roberto » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 6:58 PM UTC

fiatjaf wrote: post #30

bambax wrote: post #23

> There must be some way, they maintain, to convince people that vaccines are good for kids, and handguns are dangerous. There is: have them been born outside the US. Those two beliefs are specific to Americans; hardly a good example of "humanity" as a whole.

Strangely the most successful country in the history of mankind by all criteria.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjMqda19wk

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#90

Post by exclusiv » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 7:00 PM UTC

nsxwolf wrote: post #51

brightball wrote: post #10

Another factor here is when people abuse the word "fact" regularly. If you ever get into a discussion with somebody who claims they've proved their point by citing "facts", then actually follow up on their citations and discover that it doesn't actually say what they think it says it creates an impression of the messenger, not the message. Enough messengers saying the same faulty message over and over and you distrus…

One thing I've noticed related to this - your average global warming skeptic that you talk to in day to day conversations (not entrenched stakeholders on the internet) becomes far more willing to believe in man made climate change once you remind them that they are under no obligation to support or accept any particular policy to mitigate it. But if you tell them they have to give up this or that lifestyle, or pay mo…

People can be on the same page but still have a debate about the extent of the situation. They could agree on man made climate change while believing it's not a doomsday scenario. The extent is important because that's how you set sensible policies. If it's really not doomsday than the policies you might advocate for would be ridiculous. If it is a doomsday scenario then the lack of policies one of the skeptics you spoke with would be ridiculous.