|
jschell wrote: The screwballs in back just pour it down the drain.
Or flush it down the toilet - which slightly changes your existential question to whether we're in the bowl, swirling mid-flush or traveling through the sewer system.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: Why would they or the media lie about any of this?
That's an important question and like all theories involving conspiracies of humans (who as a rule are terrible at keeping secrets or we'd all share our passwords with certain people) motive needs to be at the forefront in terms of questioning the conspiracy.
For example, a lot of people believe the moon landing was faked.
Why? What would be the point of indoctrinating that many people, paying them off, whatever you have to do to keep all those people quiet for decades, and how would that not be more fantastic and implausible than us getting to the moon?
Hell, I think there's more motive for the intelligence community planting that theory to distract from Operation Paperclip, where we recruited Nazis to help us get there. It's at least as plausible.
Motive. Motive. Motive.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
I am fairly certain that you are the ONLY person in the room that feels their Government and media are shooting straight.
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't say that though.
I said it's important to question the motive behind conspiracy theories.
It's not enough to just tell stories about what you think the government is lying about.
That's easy, and goes nowhere good.
The proper way to uncover things involves critical thought, investigation and uncovering evidence.
Not storytelling
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
modified 13-Feb-23 19:52pm.
|
|
|
|
|
agree.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
It's a shame that in the united states at least, investigative journalism is basically dead. There's just no money in it.
Maybe it's the dearth of real coverage of things that leads people down the path of imagining scenarios. I don't know.
The people that penned the constitution of the USA thought that the press was so important they referred to it as the 4th estate.
Let's just say it's not that now.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. Objective journalism is scarce.
You can hear bits of it on (old-school reporting) BBC, but it's muted.
American journalism is far from objective.
Every reporter has an opinion as part of their reporting.
NOT real journalism.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
I have a hard time with the idea of objective and unbiased.
I am a firm believer in the idea (coined by Shem the Penman) that there can be no method of human inquiry that exists apart from human activity.
Taking a step back, every single one of us has an imperfect view of reality. Everyone. Even if we had all of our facts straight we still can't fully resolve pi, just as an example.
In addition to outright errors in our views, we fill in blanks whether we mean to or not.
Ergo everything we know is tainted by bias. We can only grasp for perfect and accomplish a gross facsimile of that.
The problem I see with news, is a focus on "engagement" rather than reporting (to the best of one's ability) the facts.
And I think that's what you mean, so I'm not trying to pick at you. More it's just an observation of mine, that even if a reporter reports facts, there is going to be bias in the way that they report them, whether they intend to or not.
There's also bias in terms of what is reported on, and a lot of that is decided in corporate boardrooms.
The above wouldn't be such a problem except for there are only like (last time I checked) 6 companies that own all the major media in the United States, so that pool of boardroom execs is pretty small, and they probably all know each other.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I do not see a distinction between unbiased and objective.
Agreed, selective journalism is a form of bias. What is chosen to be reported is a human decision. And yes, the boards are humans. This is somewhat unavoidable and perhaps AI reporting has a role here (yikes).
But what you choose to report, make that as objective as possible. The reporter is not the news. They should make that as clear as possible by keeping it as objective as possible. Subtract the human element, 1-1 = 0 bias.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
To be clear I'm not saying there's a distinction. I was saying I don't think there's such thing as truly unbiased.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Of course there are unbiased views! Those agreeing with my views are unbiased!
|
|
|
|
|
I Understand. Bias has a human quality to it.
Objective is much more neutral. Like math.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
In politics, most definitely in the international variant, what is 'objective' depends on subjective opinions. Most 'facts' are cultural artifacts.
You may of course pull up some objective, undisputable facts. Then you apply these facts in your argumentation, in very subjective ways.
Is the play 'Erasmus Montanus' by the Dane Ludvig Holberg well known in English speaking countries? Rasmus proves that his mother is stone: A stone cannot fly. Little Mother cannot fly. Then Little Mother is a stone. ... His mother is shocked to be a stone, so her son has to turn her back into a human again: A stone cannot talk, Little Mother can talk. So Little Mother is not a stone.
This play (you can read it in an English translation at ERASMUS MONTANUS OR RASMUS BERG[^]) is always presented as a comedy, and most reader / audience fail to see the satire - how we in academic and political discussions juggle all sorts of 'facts' around to reach whatever conclusion we want. In discussions, I rarely see real 'facts' being presented at all, and if they are, most of the time they are applied as arguments in more or less dubious ways. Unless you agree with the conclusion, of course. Little Mother was very happy about her son's second fact, but not with his first.
|
|
|
|
|
Coming a from mathematics and engineering background, I view objective facts as founded in the laws of nature, math and logic, etc. Math, logic, etc. can all be made to have tricks. Erasmus play is an example.
You may have heard of the Missing dollar riddle. An accounting trick.
Missing dollar riddle - Wikipedia[^]
True arguments from both sides can have objective information delivered to bolster their cases. However, I dispute that most facts are cultural artifacts. Some facts can have a culture tint, but not most. If they did we would never settle anything. One long endless argument unless one has objective facts to weigh the scale. True both sides can be right or wrong at the same time, so Flip a coin.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
jmaida wrote: Coming a from mathematics and engineering background, I view objective facts as founded in the laws of nature, math and logic, etc
For math prove that parallel lines do not intersect in a Euclidean space.
For logic prove that when a=b and b=c that a=c.
Myself my subjective experience is that both of those are true. If you can prove them then I would really like to see that.
jmaida wrote: I dispute that most facts are cultural artifacts.
Which of course is a subjective statement.
jmaida wrote: If they did we would never settle anything. One long endless argument unless one has objective facts to weigh the scale. True both sides can be right or wrong at the same time, so Flip a coin.
Vast majority of agreements by humans are based on compromises. (And I am not suggesting I know of ones that are not but rather I just do not agree to absolutism.)
People who believe that the world is flat still manage to get on airplanes that fly half way around the world to attend flat earth conferences.
|
|
|
|
|
axioms,
not subjective about artifacts,
compromises are just more sophisticated coin flips to settle
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
jmaida wrote: axioms,
Which is just defining what I said.
jmaida wrote: not subjective about artifacts,
Your stated opinion is subjective because that is what opinions are.
jmaida wrote: compromises are just more sophisticated coin flips to settle
Not sure what that means. Complex negotiations involve trade offs and no one actually doing them would claim they were decided by a "coin flip".
|
|
|
|
|
"Your stated opinion is subjective because that is what opinions are." Your opinion, I believe.
On complex negotiations, buying and selling a power plant is a very complex process. The negotiators often encode all their variables, positions, etc. in a simulated purchase agreement. (have a relative who does this). One would be surprised how many of these revolve around just 1 or 2 impasses being settled. Even after a number of iterations. So sometimes they either flip a coin (not literally) and/or trade (compromise if you like) to close the deal.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Axiom
noun
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
I downloaded Erasmus story. I heard a variation many moons ago. Seems to be about the same. I love logic twists. And yes, juggling is a there, but it's the meta position that's sees the juggling. Beware the meta juggler.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
"You may of course pull up some objective, undisputable facts. Then you apply these facts in your argumentation, in very subjective ways."
How else can make one's case?
Objective, indisputable facts is the fuel to settle an argument. Application is not subjective. It is required.
True, settling an argument can also become "might makes right". But we all know that's the evil side.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
+1 here 
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Motive. Motive. Motive.
During the Apollo missions we came together as a country to compete against the Russians. The motive to fake that wasn't worth the expense of faking it.
Now, we're being torn apart from the inside as some very corrupt people are trying to grow the government and remove every last ounce of freedom we don't have anymore. The motive to destroy this republic is worth faking a ton of crap.
The US is turning into a 3rd world right before our very eyes, and for the same reason it always happens, a corrupt few at the top are seeking unrivaled power at the expense of the public.
But, the average person doesn't need to worry about any of this, they have Netflix and a new food pyramid that includes sugary cereals.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with all of this. I'm just saying when there's finger pointing about conspiracies there's typically not enough questioning of the motives behind it. And yet that's an effective tool for determining whether it's even worth looking into.
I'm not about blind trust, I'm about ruling out the highly improbable before it buries me such that I can never find the truth.
Garry Kasparov said that the point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.
He was on point. You have to weed and filter before you can hope to come across something.
Everyone on the Internet can make up a story, and if you chase all those stories you'll never know the truth of things.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
