Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/10/31/ste...iety-14375

EXCERPT (Alex Berezow): Steven Pinker is an excellent writer and thinker. ... However, I think that Dr. Pinker misses the mark in a recent essay he wrote for Skeptic titled "Why We Are Not Living in a Post‑Truth Era." He begins by trying to show that it is illogical to believe in a post-truth era. "Consider the statement 'We are living in a post-truth era.' Is it true? If so, it cannot be true."

Dr. Pinker is echoing a famous dialogue between Socrates and Protagoras. [...] The problem with Dr. Pinker's argument is that it's a straw man. Those who claim we live in a post-truth society are not saying that there is no such thing as truth. What they are saying is that truth doesn't matter to most people. When presented with information they do not like, many people respond by calling it "fake news." But Dr. Pinker says this about fake news: "Another inspiration for the post-truth cliché is the recent prominence of 'fake news.' But this, too, is not a new development..."

Dr. Pinker is absolutely correct that fake news is not a recent development. [...] What makes things different today, in my opinion, is that we have the internet. ... Yet, instead of doing research and telling the truth, we prefer to spread lies and propaganda ... We have no excuse to be poorly informed, yet we choose to be. Dr. Pinker goes on: "And the belief that fake news is displacing the truth itself needs to be examined for its truth. In their analysis of [political] fake news ... Brendan Nyhan, and Jason Reifler found that it took up a minuscule proportion of the online communications..."

Fair enough, but I think Dr. Pinker underestimates the scope of the problem. ... Politics isn't the only arena within which we are inundated with fake news. [Pinker:] "But the main reason we should retire the posttruth cliché is that it’s corrosive, perhaps self-fulfilling. The implication is we may as well give up on reason and truth and just fight the bad guys’ lies and intimidation with lies and intimidation of our own."

Nobody is making that argument. On the contrary, there are serious efforts to understand how to reach people [...] Dr. Pinker then makes this claim: "When people are confronted with their own ignorance of the facts, they become more epistemically humble about their opinions."

I don't know who Dr. Pinker has been talking to, but that's certainly not my experience. In fact, quite the opposite. When people are confronted with their own ignorance, they double down and become even more insistent that they are right. As Dr. Michael Shermer discusses in Scientific American, this is known as the backfire effect. [...] Ultimately, where I think Dr. Pinker is wrong ... his ... His view is too optimistic. We really are swimming in B.S. (MORE - details)

(Nov 1, 2019 06:58 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]What they are saying is that truth doesn't matter to most people. When presented with information they do not like, many people respond by calling it "fake news." But Dr. Pinker says this about fake news: "Another inspiration for the post-truth cliché is the recent prominence of 'fake news.' But this, too, is not a new development..."

That's just a description of human bias that has always existed. It has become no more or less prominent is society, and thus not especially "post-truth".

(Nov 1, 2019 06:58 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ] .. . What makes things different today, in my opinion, is that we have the internet. ... Yet, instead of doing research and telling the truth, we prefer to spread lies and propaganda ... 

Yep.  We live in an age where many people believe that there are always two equally valid "sides."  Sure, vaccines might work - but they also cause autism because someone said so.  Maybe the Earth is round - but it might be flat, and we have to give that dissenting viewpoint equal time to be fair.  Evolution may be real, but it may be false.  Teach the controversy!

The Internet is a big part of this.  It allows people to, in seconds, find evidence that the Earth is flat, or that a "healthy young" kid gets a vaccination, "doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM."   50 years ago you could have found the same information if you looked hard enough, but let's face it - the sort of people who are susceptible to theories like this aren't the sort who spend much effort looking things up.  If it's more than a Google search away they won't bother.

Charismatic leaders who govern via cult of personality are another.  They use the "big lie" to gather supporters and encourage party unity - and for many people, that works.  They rally around the lie and make that their core belief; to do otherwise would make them feel unfaithful to the cult.

Hearing about more kooky views does not mean they are more prevalent, only more amplified. And only fools who push nonsense like relative morality, and truth, equate dissenting views or grant them equal validity. Years ago, people who believed wacky things didn't have the internet to challenge their views, and thus no need to look for "supporting evidence".

There is nothing truly new under the sun. But the young always think otherwise.

(Nov 1, 2019 06:58 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with Dr. Pinker's argument is that it's a straw man. Those who claim we live in a post-truth society are not saying that there is no such thing as truth. What they are saying is that truth doesn't matter to most people. When presented with information they do not like, many people respond by calling it "fake news."

I don't think that's it either.

The problem is that so much of what people say is moral approval or disapproval, not matters of fact at all. ('Wrong' in ethics is a very different kind of 'wrong' than the falsity of propositions.) Are moral beliefs opinions or facts? What are the truth-makers for ethical beliefs? What state of affairs in the physical world make this action morally right and that action morally wrong? Yet pretty much all of our politics is built atop moral axioms. (And today, everything is politicized and hence, moralized.) It's all about who the good-guys and the bad-guys are. It's why I say that we live in a Neo-puritan age (with all of the old-style black-and-white moralism, but with all of the faith in God removed).

Quote:But Dr. Pinker says this about fake news: "Another inspiration for the post-truth cliché is the recent prominence of 'fake news.' But this, too, is not a new development..."

Even when it purports to report facts, the news media slips in its own editorial decisions by deciding what the day's headlines should be and what goes above the fold.

Quote:Yet, instead of doing research and telling the truth, we prefer to spread lies and propaganda

But if most of it is already opinion and moral judgement, and if there isn't really any truth to those kind of matters, then that argument just collapses. Even when facts do intrude into the little morality-plays, they merely play the role of rhetorical ammo. Those facts have already been carefully selected to make a writer's desired point, and that's almost always agenda-driven.

Stories in the media that purport to tell us what the facts are are almost always telling us what various writers and editors think is important and what we should believe it all means.

Quote:Dr. Pinker goes on: "And the belief that fake news is displacing the truth itself needs to be examined for its truth.

I think that there's a lot of truth to it.

For an example, just look at Scivillage's Kincade fire thread. I tried to keep it focused on facts. Certainly even those facts were already selected, but I trusted the sources: Cal Fire, the Sonoma Sheriff etc: The fire was there yesterday, it spread to here today. Evacuations have been ordered here, here and here. This highway is currently open, that one isn't. Facts

But even as I wrote those posts, much of the mainstream news media was trying to lay blame (whenever something bad happens, it has to be some bad people's fault) and telling us what government should do to correct things. (Government always seems to be the adult's surrogate parent, the omnipotent always-beneficent one that can make everything right. Mommy!!!) Again, facts melting into somebody's opinion, somebody trying as hard as they can to frame the events and to fit them into their own preferred narrative.

Then the thread went entirely off the rails. (And I knew that my participation there was over.)

The problem that Pinker questions, fake news replacing real news, is that news is no longer an hour on TV at dinnertime. It's 24/7. And there simply aren't enough breaking news events to fill up all that time. So they fill it with "experts" and pundits expressing.... wait for it... opinions. Trying to tell everyone watching what conclusions they should take away from the day's perhaps meagre factual events. What the narratives should be.

In my view, the phrase "fake news is displacing the truth" is just another way of saying that opinion-journalism is increasingly replacing factual reporting.

(Nov 3, 2019 08:04 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]I think that there's a lot of truth to it.

For an example, just look at Scivillage's Kincade fire thread. I tried to keep it focused on facts. Certainly even those facts were already selected, but I trusted the sources: Cal Fire, the Sonoma Sheriff etc: The fire was there yesterday, it spread to here today. Evacuations have been ordered here, here and here. This highway is currently open, that one isn't. Facts

But even as I wrote those posts, much of the mainstream news media was trying to lay blame (whenever something bad happens, it has to be some bad people's fault) and telling us what government should do to correct things. (Government always seems to be the adult's surrogate parent, the omnipotent always-beneficent one that can make everything right. Mommy!!!) Again, facts melting into somebody's opinion, somebody trying as hard as they can to frame the events and to fit them into their own preferred narrative.

Then the thread went entirely off the rails. (And I knew that my participation there was over.)

The problem that Pinker questions, fake news replacing real news, is that news is no longer an hour on TV at dinnertime. It's 24/7. And there simply aren't enough breaking news events to fill up all that time. So they fill it with "experts" and pundits expressing.... wait for it... opinions. Trying to tell everyone watching what conclusions they should take away from the day's perhaps meagre factual events. What the narratives should be.

In my view, the phrase "fake news is displacing the truth" is just another way of saying that opinion-journalism is increasingly replacing factual reporting.

And that…wait for it…is just your opinion. Factual reporting is also used to persuade and advocate for a course of action.

Great idea, though. Let's take a look at that topic, shall we?

Come on, Yazata, there’s no need for subtlety. Be bold. Give us the facts. WHERE? WHEN? AND WHO?

(Nov 4, 2019 03:58 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]And that…wait for it…is just your opinion.

Of course. I was responding with my own opinions about CC's post relating some person's opinions about some opinions that Steven Pinker had expressed. Opinions, piled atop opinions. I never suggested that it was some fanciful direct window on the "truth" or anything like that.

My point is that most "journalism" these days is much the same kind of thing. Some writer or editor's opinion. Which is directly relevant to CC's "post-truth society" phrase in the subject line. Opinions do seem to me to be squeezing out facts.

Quote:Factual reporting is also used to persuade and advocate for a course of action.

Oftentimes they aren't exactly facts. Facts regarding controversial issues are oftentimes matters of controversy themselves. There's a awful lot of motivated misrepresentation going on out there. And there's always going to be a choice of which facts to emphasize. Lots of things happen every day. So which of those things are the important things? Which things does the general public really need to know about? How should people think about those selected things?

My point isn't that all news reporting is bad. Much of it isn't. But it's always going to be coming to us distorted through an interpretive lens. Much of the time it reflects a journalist's agenda. 

Quote:Great idea, though. Let's take a look at that topic, shall we?

Come on, Yazata, there’s no need for subtlety. Be bold. Give us the facts. WHERE? WHEN? AND WHO?

Don't be so defensive. I wasn't criticizing you. I didn't want to name anyone because I didn't want to call anyone out and get embroiled in any ego-battles. But if you insist on it, my criticism was aimed largely at Syne and his expression of dislike for California. Which had nothing much to do with the subject of the thread in my opinion and seemed purposely crafted to turn the thread into a political thread.

I don't enjoy that and am not interested in going there. More to the point, it illustrated the point that I was trying to make about what Pinker and his critic had been saying about fake news replacing actual facts. Whether California is a good place (I have no plans to leave) or whether its government is responsible, patriotic or even sane (I'm doubtful and increasingly alienated... but that's just my own opinion) replaces facts about the fire. Which illustrates the "post-truth society" phrase very nicely.

I post here on Scivillage for fun and enjoy the feeling that I'm among friends. If people want to introduce the political divisiveness that's poisoning and destroying any sense of common community, identity and purpose that we might once have shared out in the wider world, I won't participate. If this board becomes dominated by it, I'll leave.

(Nov 4, 2019 05:24 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]Don't be so defensive. I wasn't criticizing you. I didn't want to name anyone because I didn't want to call anyone out and get embroiled in any ego-battles. But if you insist on it, my criticism was aimed largely at Syne and his expression of dislike for California. Which had nothing much to do with the subject of the thread in my opinion and seemed purposely crafted to turn the thread into a political thread.

I don't enjoy that and am not interested in going there. More to the point, it illustrated the point that I was trying to make about what Pinker and his critic had been saying about fake news replacing actual facts. Whether California is a good place (I have no plans to leave) or whether its government is responsible, patriotic or even sane (I'm doubtful and increasingly alienated... but that's just my own opinion) replaces facts about the fire. Which illustrates the "post-truth society" phrase very nicely.

I post here on Scivillage for fun and enjoy the feeling that I'm among friends. If people want to introduce the political divisiveness that's poisoning and destroying any sense of common community, identity and purpose that we might once have shared out in the wider world, I won't participate. If this board becomes dominated by it, I'll leave.

Fair enough but this isn’t the first time that you’ve threatened to leave.

I don’t care for politics either. I don’t enjoy the rhetoric and distortion, nor the way that they view their opponents as enemies to be defeated. In fact, the behavior of the party leaders suggests that it is perfectly acceptable to treat their opponents with disdain.

However, you of all people should understand that their partisan beliefs play a major role in their identity and even more so than race or religion.

A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization

There are only a handful of people here, Yazata, and each of us have something to contribute. If you want to leave then leave but stop throwing around threats. It blocks communication and I don’t appreciate it.

(Nov 4, 2019 05:24 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't want to name anyone because I didn't want to call anyone out and get embroiled in any ego-battles. But if you insist on it, my criticism was aimed largely at Syne and his expression of dislike for California. Which had nothing much to do with the subject of the thread in my opinion and seemed purposely crafted to turn the thread into a political thread.

No offense taken. I just thought it was relevant to the possible contributing factors. Yes, leftists (or those avoiding politics) might not like it, but who likes what doesn't really inform my posting. If that ruins an entire thread, that's the individual's prerogative. They can either ignore it or not.