Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

NY Times opinion piece suggests caution while using critical thinking


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 August West

August West

    Mycotopiate

  • OG VIP
  • 4,163 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 25 July 2021 - 01:09 AM

Shockingly, there are formatting issues (yes, I know clicking the eraser icon does stuff, except for when it doesn't). All of the text, minus the title of the post are copied and pasted.

Don't Go Down The Rabbit Hole

Critical thinking, as we're taught to do it, isn't helping in the fight against misinformation.

 

 

For an academic, Michael Caulfield has an odd request: Stop overthinking what you see online.

Mr. Caulfield, a digital literacy expert at Washington State University Vancouver, knows all too well that at this very moment, more people are fighting for the opportunity to lie to you than at perhaps any other point in human history.

 

Misinformation rides the greased algorithmic rails of powerful social media platforms and travels at velocities and in volumes that make it nearly impossible to stop. That alone makes information warfare an unfair fight for the average internet user. But Mr. Caulfield argues the deck is stacked even further against us. That the way we’re taught from a young age to evaluate and think critically about information is fundamentally flawed and out of step with the chaos of the current internet.

 

“We’re taught that, in order to protect ourselves from bad information, we need to deeply engage with the stuff that washes up in front of us,” Mr. Caulfield told me recently. He suggested that the dominant mode of media literacy (if kids get taught any at all) is that “you’ll get imperfect information and then use reasoning to fix that somehow. But in reality, that strategy can completely backfire.”

 

In other words: Resist the lure of rabbit holes, in part, by reimagining media literacy for the internet hellscape we occupy. It’s often counterproductive to engage directly with content from an unknown source, and people can be led astray by false information. Influenced by the research of Sam Wineburg, a professor at Stanford, and Sarah McGrew, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland, Mr. Caulfield argued that the best way to learn about a source of information is to leave it and look elsewhere, a concept called lateral reading.

 

For instance, imagine you were to visit Stormfront, a white supremacist message board, to try to understand racist claims in order to debunk them. “Even if you see through the horrible rhetoric, at the end of the day you gave that place however many minutes of your time,” Mr. Caulfield said. “Even with good intentions, you run the risk of misunderstanding something, because Stormfront users are way better at propaganda than you. You won’t get less racist reading Stormfront critically, but you might be overloaded by information and overwhelmed.”

 

Our current information crisis, Mr. Caulfield argues, is an attention crisis.

 

“The goal of disinformation is to capture attention, and critical thinking is deep attention,” he wrote in 2018. People learn to think critically by focusing on something and contemplating it deeply — to follow the information’s logic and the inconsistencies.

 

That natural human mind-set is a liability in an attention economy. It allows grifters, conspiracy theorists, trolls and savvy attention hijackers to take advantage of us and steal our focus. “Whenever you give your attention to a bad actor, you allow them to steal your attention from better treatments of an issue, and give them the opportunity to warp your perspective,” Mr. Caulfield wrote.

 

 

One way to combat this dynamic is to change how we teach media literacy: Internet users need to learn that our attention is a scarce commodity that is to be spent wisely.

 

In 2016, Mr. Caulfield met Mr. Wineburg, who suggested modeling the process after the way professional fact checkers assess information. Mr. Caulfield refined the practice into four simple principles:

 

1. Stop.

2. Investigate the source.

3. Find better coverage.

4. Trace claims, quotes and media to the original context.

 

Otherwise known as SIFT.

 

Mr. Caulfield walked me through the process using an Instagram post from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent anti-vaccine activist, falsely alleging a link between the human papillomavirus vaccine and cancer. “If this is not a claim where I have a depth of understanding, then I want to stop for a second and, before going further, just investigate the source,” Mr. Caulfield said. He copied Mr. Kennedy’s name in the Instagram post and popped it into Google. “Look how fast this is,” he told me as he counted the seconds out loud. In 15 seconds, he navigated to Wikipedia and scrolled through the introductory section of the page, highlighting with his cursor the last sentence, which reads that Mr. Kennedy is an anti-vaccine activist and a conspiracy theorist.

 

“Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. the best, unbiased source on information about a vaccine? I’d argue no. And that’s good enough to know we should probably just move on,” he said.

 

He probed deeper into the method to find better coverage by copying the main claim in Mr. Kennedy’s post and pasting that into a Google search. The first two results came from Agence France-Presse’s fact-check website and the National Institutes of Health. His quick searches showed a pattern: Mr. Kennedy’s claims were outside the consensus — a sign they were motivated by something other than science.

 

The SIFT method and the instructional teaching unit (about six hours of class work) that accompanies it has been picked up by dozens of universities across the country and in some Canadian high schools. What is potentially revolutionary about SIFT is that it focuses on making quick judgments. A SIFT fact check can and should take just 30, 60, 90 seconds to evaluate a piece of content.

 

The four steps are based on the premise that you often make a better decision with less information than you do with more. Also, spending 15 minutes to determine a single fact in order to decipher a tweet or a piece of news coming from a source you’ve never seen before will often leave you more confused than you were before. “The question we want students asking is: Is this a good source for this purpose, or could I find something better relatively quickly?” Mr. Kennedy said. “I’ve seen in the classroom where a student finds a great answer in three minutes but then keeps going and ends up won over by bad information.”

SIFT has its limits. It’s designed for casual news consumers, not experts or those attempting to do deep research. A reporter working on an investigative story or trying to synthesize complex information will have to go deep. But for someone just trying to figure out a basic fact, it’s helpful not to get bogged down. “We’ve been trained to think that Googling or just checking one resource we trust is almost like cheating,” he said. “But when people search Google, the best results may not always be first, but the good information is usually near the top. Often you see a pattern in the links of a consensus that’s been formed. But deeper into the process, it often gets weirder. It’s important to know when to stop.”

 

Christina Ladam, an assistant political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, has seen the damage firsthand. While teaching an introductory class as a Ph.D. student in 2015, she noticed her students had trouble vetting sources and distinguishing credible news from untrustworthy information. During one research assignment on the 2016 presidential race, multiple students cited a debunked claim from a satirical website claiming that Ben Carson, a candidate that year, had been endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan. “Some of these students had never had somebody even talk to them about checking sources or looking for fake news,” she told me. “It was just uncritical acceptance if it fit with the narrative in their head or complete rejection if it didn’t.”

 

 

Ms. Ladam started teaching a SIFT-based media literacy unit in her political science classes because of the method’s practical application. The unit is short, only two weeks long. Her students latched onto quick tricks like how to hover over a Twitter handle and see if the account looks legitimate or is a parody account or impersonation. They learned how to reverse image search using Google to check if a photo had been doctored or if similar photos had been published by trusted news outlets. Students were taught to identify claims in Facebook or Instagram posts and, with a few searches, decide — even if they’re unsure of the veracity — whether the account seems to be a trustworthy guide or if they should look elsewhere.

 

The goal isn’t to make political judgments or to talk students out of a particular point of view, but to try to get them to understand the context of a source of information and make decisions about its credibility. The course is not precious about overly academic sources, either.

 

“The students are confused when I tell them to try and trace something down with a quick Wikipedia search, because they’ve been told not to do it,” she said. “Not for research papers, but if you’re trying to find out if a site is legitimate or if somebody has a history as a conspiracy theorist and you show them how to follow the page’s citation, it’s quick and effective, which means it’s more likely to be used.”

 

As a journalist who can be a bit of a snob about research methods, it makes me anxious to type this advice. Use Wikipedia for quick guidance! Spend less time torturing yourself with complex primary sources! A part of my brain hears this and reflexively worries these methods could be exploited by conspiracy theorists. But listening to Ms. Ladam and Mr. Caulfield describe disinformation dynamics, it seems that snobs like me have it backward.

 

Think about YouTube conspiracy theorists or many QAnon or anti-vaccine influencers. Their tactic, as Mr. Caulfield noted, is to flatter viewers while overloading them with three-hour videos laced with debunked claims and pseudoscience, as well as legitimate information. “The internet offers this illusion of explanatory depth,” he said. “Until 20 seconds ago, you’d never thought about, say, race and IQ, but now, suddenly, somebody is treating you like an expert. It’s flattering your intellect, and so you engage, but you don’t really stand a chance.”

 

What he described is a kind of informational hubris we have that is quite difficult to fight. But what SIFT and Mr. Caulfield’s lessons seem to do is flatter their students in a different way: by reminding us our attention is precious.

 

The goal of SIFT isn’t to be the arbiter of truth but to instill a reflex that asks if something is worth one’s time and attention and to turn away if not. Because the method is less interested in political judgments, Mr. Caulfield and Ms. Ladam noticed, students across the political spectrum are more likely to embrace it. By the end of the two-week course, Ms. Ladam said, students are better at finding primary sources for research papers. In discussions they’re less likely to fall back on motivated reasoning. Students tend to be less defensive when confronted with a piece of information they disagree with. Even if their opinions on a broader issue don’t change, a window is open that makes conversation possible. Perhaps most promising, she has seen her students share the methods with family members who post dubious news stories online. “It sounds so simple, but I think that teaching people how to check their news source by even a quick Wikipedia can have profound effects,” she said.

 

SIFT is not an antidote to misinformation. Poor media literacy is just one component of a broader problem that includes more culpable actors like politicians, platforms and conspiracy peddlers. If powerful, influential people with the ability to command vast quantities of attention use that power to warp reality and platforms don’t intervene, no mnemonic device can stop them. But SIFT may add a bit of friction into the system. Most important, it urges us to take the attention we save with SIFT and apply it to issues that matter to us.

 

“Right now we are taking the scarcest, most valuable resource we have — our attention — and we’re using it to try to repair the horribly broken information ecosystem,” Mr. Caulfield said. “We’re throwing good money after bad.”

 

 

Our focus isn’t free, and yet we’re giving it away with every glance at a screen. But it doesn’t have to be that way. In fact, the economics are in our favor. Demand for our attention is at an all-time high, and we control supply. It’s time we increased our price.

 

 

 

 


Edited by August West, 25 July 2021 - 01:25 AM.

  • coorsmikey and FLASHINGROOSTER like this

#2 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 3,035 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 25 July 2021 - 09:44 AM

I have a few thoughts but lets focus on the positive ones for once. Nice to see they are teaching kids basic tools to source out credibility of information

 

 

edit: Some day I will post and will be able to walk away from the mistakes.... some day. A two sentence post should have been a lock


Edited by FLASHINGROOSTER, 25 July 2021 - 09:46 AM.


#3 Moonless

Moonless

    Mycotopiate

  • Black VIP
  • 919 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 25 July 2021 - 12:17 PM

It really wasn't that long ago since I was in middle and high school and even then the critical thinking skills I learned aren't enough for the modern landscape of truth finding making. Thanks for copying the articles text. Algorithms sorta make it to where going down a rabbit hole can end very badly. Particularly with social media rabbit holes can be quite bad. These click holes aren't meant to educate you, the algorithm is only trying to keep you on the site. I think the best way to learn is to go to school for it.


Edited by Moonless, 25 July 2021 - 01:02 PM.

  • FLASHINGROOSTER likes this

#4 August West

August West

    Mycotopiate

  • OG VIP
  • 4,163 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 25 July 2021 - 04:42 PM

Apologies. I don't have the time I thought I would for this atm, otherwise I would've waited to post it. I have a quick moment, though.

I see the article a lot different. I think it's mostly problematic, condescending, etc. Another salvo in the "information control technology" that the internet seems to be becoming (I borrowed that phrase and think it's looking more and more accurate). This is why I used the tongue-in-cheek title for the post. Wikipedia is how I'm supposed to determine whether a claim or idea is worth investigating? Yikes.

I will try to get back asap but, for the moment, here is a link to a discussion about the article from a podcast I've been listening to for about a decade. It's audio so if it's possible to embed here, I don't know how. Apologies again. Anyway, I don't necessarily expect a lot of listeners but if you're interested, it's a thoughtful, mostly casual conversation about the article. It's where it came to my attention. I share a lot of sympathy with the views discussed. It's part 1 of 2 (2 hasn't been posted yet)


https://schoolsucksp...-2-podcast-722/

Edited by August West, 25 July 2021 - 04:54 PM.

  • TVCasualty likes this

#5 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,787 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 26 July 2021 - 10:35 AM

I guess I assumed that the "critical" part of "critical thinking" meant using caution in one's thinking. Or a form of caution, anyway.

 

So to warn people to use caution in a context of critical thinking would be redundant. He seems to be making a good point badly.

 

I get the impression that the author didn't do a very good job in attempting to warn against the genuinely dangerous Stockholm Syndrome-related problem of getting stuck in "do your own research!" echo-chambers that tend to self-reinforce their own "research" in closed-loop circles of questionable sources and arbitrarily-assumed givens. The logic within an argument can be perfectly valid, but that's not sufficient if its givens are unsound. I'd guess that's also how religions endure.

 

We tend to sympathize with ideas we spend a lot of time reading and thinking about, and increasing our sympathy towards people who may not have our best interests at heart (even up to and including those who take us hostage, apparently) or towards ideas that may be bullshit simply by extended exposure to them apparently can happen in widely disparate contexts thanks to our mental default setting being Cognitive Dissonance.

 

Critical thinking is a learned skill, and takes a while to inculcate properly. Incompetence in manifesting that skill is rampant. Dissonance is innate, and very hard to suppress. It's amazing to me that our species has made it this far. Miraculous, even.

 

 

It's easy to slide into derision and condescension if you consider what some folks are claiming is true to be equivalent to arguing for a flat Earth (or even literally arguing that Earth is flat; the fact that this is actually still a thing some believe seems like pretty good evidence in support of this point).

 

At what point do we refuse to engage with outliers and just tell them that their belief or argument or whatever is completely full of shit and not worth arguing about any further? That seems to be the central issue here. And I bet that no answer is going to satisfy everyone.


  • newmoon and Moonless like this

#6 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 3,035 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 26 July 2021 - 03:44 PM

I know what your picking at August I was going to say something similar along the lines of well what are these trusted sources that one can so quickly decide. What sort of society does that form when we let big brother tell us what is true. I do agree with the idea that rabbit holes can be dangerous and time wasting sometimes though. Not all rabbit holes are worthy of our time and investigation, how do you determine that well, a few quick search's is a good start I guess. Better than simply believing whatever information is presented

 

Personally I think the idea of these fact checking websites are a joke, who they hell are they to decide what is true or not? The idea that a quick click can get you a simple answer to a complicated question should raise eyebrows. Do they provide clear evidence for their assertion or are they just saying it out loud with a nice graphic? The truth can be a tricky thing to nail down sometimes and when we think we got it, well then we realize we didn't even have half the puzzle.

 

Then I think well we used to rely on those encyclopedia's as the arbiters of truth so I suppose what is the difference with the digital versions. We don't have to argue that 2+2=4, no searching needed, no sources, we accept it as fact. Sitting around arguing the alternatives to that seem to be a gigantic waste of time.

 

It may be why the word conspiracy theory is so effective in its use, its double edged sword like nature. In one way it is useful to describe when we go too far down the rabbit hole. And on the other a weapon to discredit and undermine the rabbit holes worth investigating.



#7 newmoon

newmoon

    Mycotopiate

  • VIP
  • 377 posts

Posted 26 July 2021 - 04:39 PM

This is tangential to the posted article, but it does seem important to me to know what one knows and what one doesn't. For example, I'm reasonably knowledgeable about certain environmental issues, and so I feel qualified to judge articles I see about those, but I don't know shit about epidemiology, and so I'd rather listen to people who do.

 

I'm about as skeptical of the state, mainstream media, and institutions as anyone, but I think I'd still rather listen to the general consensus of people with PhDs (or whatever) in the subject than cranks on youtube and podcasts...one can "do one's own research", but I hope there's greater weight given to peer-reviewed journals and such than to people spouting off? Science is flawed, as is the academic system of "truth" production, but it's better than the postmodern epistemological nihilism the conspiracy types seem to push, where something is true because someone says it on youtube.

 

I mean, on here we generally suggest that new growers defer to the judgement of the older members with proven results and expertise; I don't think it's terribly different?


  • TVCasualty likes this

#8 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 3,035 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 27 July 2021 - 06:17 PM

Yeah but who decides what experts are allowed to speak and what platforms they can speak it from? Youtube removed a video from the inventor of Mnra technology after he spoke out against vaccinating children. His company was involved with the production of one of the vaccines even, himself was vaccinated but the information oligarchy decided he was not allowed to speak. Who decided that, a peer review of epidemiologist employed by youtube? I doubt it. Being on youtube does not automatically make you a quack. There are just as many doctors speaking pro covid science on there as well. But for the most part what you see is what you search out.

 

If we trust google not to be bias and rely on their search engines results, what scientific peer review is taking place there? An Algorithm? I don't think anyone is saying you should rely on youtube videos for your information but understand that the main stream can suppress things so outlets like those can provide some benefit. For example: This year there was misguided mainstream censorship that took place against anyone who ran counter to the "science" and the "expert  consensus" behind covid origin.

 

I was thinking, it is like we are going through the idiots enlightenment with this abundance of misinformation. With the rise of youtube a new type of video formed that millions found to be entertaining as it was "educational". Youtube sends one down a rabbit hole of the bias information they are seeking out, you click on a somewhat sketchy video and all off a sudden you have 20 videos about cabals and ancient secret societies filling the queue. We all noticed how the history channel morphed into a parody of itself right? People would rather watch speculative shorts about ancient aliens colonizing earth than actual history. Although interest in that sort of thing is nothing new. They were saying that back in the day people were obsessed with Witch literature and would seek it out and trade it. No doubt there is an entertainment factor when we engage in whispers. Another insoluble issue in my mind, "girls just wanna have fun" right

 

There is no blanket approach to this stuff, sadly it has to be dealt with on a case by case basis, so a simple flood of information is all it takes to keeps the fake news ball rolling. It is a serious problem that I don't know that it can ever be addressed. As time rolls forward we get more opinions, more thoughts, more avenues to go down that lead to nowhere. Like an ever expanding bubble as more information fills us up to the point of absolute chaos. Objective reality hyper drive engaged

 

This probably goes without saying around here but... The Government is not spying on us through our electronic devices, all the experts told us so... And those same experts assured us Sadam had yellow cake and had secret uranium enrichment facilities underground too ect... So you can understand why some people are a little skeptical of the experts, because frankly they can be full of shit too. What happens when those full of shit bastards form a consensus and we rely on that? Well we have seen the disastrous results played out over the last couple of decades.

 

Most of the ludicrous conspiracy arguments can be disarmed with some simple logic if they are confronted. However most of the people never really have that opportunity thanks to our ever increasing echo chamber fractal like society. An to be honest some people really don't want their myth to be busted because it is entertaining. I have to admit as a super alien skeptic I have been having a bit of fun engaging in that realm lately, there can be a bit of fun in belief. Dangerous fun sometimes

 

Now when we shift the conversation over to the medical side of things you would think people would place more trust in said experts. I go to my doctor and for the most part trust that they know what they are doing. I can't help but wonder how much damage those initial lies did to public's psyche. Even though one could consider the mask issue a noble lie, it broke public trust. Something that is really really hard to get back. You see these type of things repeated in the comment sections often, a form of broken trust.

 

Now is that a troll farm or public opinion? Well the real live people I know tend to think a certain way... You can probably guess what that is based on my comments

 

END RANT

 

I could use a hoot



#9 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 3,035 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 28 July 2021 - 04:07 PM

That was a good podcast btw August. I usually don't regret taking the time to engage those long format discussions running counter to the article writers thoughts.

 

I would argue its more about entertainment than time. Most people don't get any enjoyment doing tedious investigation and would rather someone summarize it for them. People want to know but don't really care to put the effort in, especially if you find the subject matter boring.


  • August West likes this

#10 Moonless

Moonless

    Mycotopiate

  • Black VIP
  • 919 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 28 July 2021 - 05:39 PM

Personally I think the idea of these fact checking websites are a joke, who they hell are they to decide what is true or not?

 

Why? Usually they are debunking right wing memes and fake news. For most things it's not so hard to decide what is true or not.


  • Juthro likes this

#11 Moonless

Moonless

    Mycotopiate

  • Black VIP
  • 919 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 28 July 2021 - 05:44 PM

Most of the ludicrous conspiracy arguments can be disarmed with some simple logic if they are confronted. However most of the people never really have that opportunity thanks to our ever increasing echo chamber fractal like society. An to be honest some people really don't want their myth to be busted because it is entertaining. I have to admit as a super alien skeptic I have been having a bit of fun engaging in that realm lately, there can be a bit of fun in belief. Dangerous fun sometimes

Can I rant with you?

 

I absolutly hate encountering a crazed conspiracy theorist because while their 'facts' are utter bull shit, I just don't have the actual facts to prove them wrong off the top of my head cause they are so specific. When I get home it just take 15 minutes of googling to find what I needed to disprove their BS.

 

 

On a side note I might suggest Duck Duck Go search. It doesn't seem to personalize so at least you get the same shit as everyone else instead of something catered to be agreeable to your worldview.


  • Juthro and FLASHINGROOSTER like this

#12 newmoon

newmoon

    Mycotopiate

  • VIP
  • 377 posts

Posted 28 July 2021 - 08:33 PM

Flashingrooster:

1. I never suggested one should trust tech companies (or the government, or the media); I'm curious why you seem to think I did?

 

2. You point out (correctly) that experts can make mistakes and run down the wrong paths, but then jump from that to dismissing the idea of expert consensus. This is exactly why one should tend towards the "consensus" over individual voices on the internet (regardless of the individual expertise); without peer review and a preponderance of evidence, it's wise to be skeptical about any claims individuals make.

 

"Heroic rebel takes on the corrupt establishment" is a compelling plot, but this is rarely how science works (note the parallel with industry tactics for discrediting climate change)! For the most part science is an incremental process of adding evidence, paper by paper, until a consensus emerges.

 

 

When it comes to science, don't trust the media, don't trust the government, and don't trust tech companies. Read the papers yourself and look at the meta-analyses and review papers. Thanks to sci-hub you, I, and everyone with an internet connection has access to almost the entirety of modern scientific research; getting one's opinions about science from talking heads rather than looking to the literature is laziness.


  • Juthro, Moonless and FLASHINGROOSTER like this

#13 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 3,035 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 29 July 2021 - 03:52 PM

 

Personally I think the idea of these fact checking websites are a joke, who they hell are they to decide what is true or not?

 

Why? Usually they are debunking right wing memes and fake news. For most things it's not so hard to decide what is true or not.

 

 

For the most part.... but because they exists with a finality is where I start to question it. If they were treated like news articles, in the sense that you should never trust one source then they might be a little better. Once one has looked it up on the fact checking website people assume then you are good to go.I mean its right in the name, fact checked.  We assume the hard work was done, the question has been truly answered, no reason to look any further into this. I really don't see what they do as any different than reporters. Except now they are being touted as the voices of truth because nobody trusts traditional media to give them the whole story. I guess at least they try to practice a bit of objectivity, unlike the rest of the MSM landscape. Perhaps it is not even the sites themselves so much as how they are used as weapons to try to beat people up in political arguments that I take issue with. For sure I would rather people use those than simply relaying what they read on facebook, but I still think we have a lot of work to do and really should not rely on these as the final truth

 

I mean if its so easy to fact check what is true or not ourselves, then why do we need them in the first place?

 

 

 

1. I never suggested one should trust tech companies (or the government, or the media); I'm curious why you seem to think I did?

 

 

Don't take it to heart thats why sometimes I don't address comments directly, its not to address what was said so much as to try to build upon it to make another point. That was more of a generalized rant for anyone reading it rather than a direct question. You made your stance fairly clear in that post

 

 To answer you question indirectly though I suppose the reason I don't trust them is because they are the ones who are relaying the information from the expert consensus to the public? I suppose I see them as part of the consensus machine, the ugly part. The enforcers of the consensus

 

We have to understand there is an insulating barrier between the actual scientist in the labs and the information the public is presented with.

 

[Direct Link]

 

Part of that can simply be explained away by the journalists inability to detect what they are hearing is bullshit or not. For the most part it is taken at face value due to a lack of understanding. The other side is intentionally skewing information in order to garner a public response, like Mr Dazak and his lancet letter. We should mention that some of those scientist have in fact switched their consensus on the issue since the early days when that letter was first penned.

 

 

2. You point out (correctly) that experts can make mistakes and run down the wrong paths, but then jump from that to dismissing the idea of expert consensus. This is exactly why one should tend towards the "consensus" over individual voices on the internet (regardless of the individual expertise); without peer review and a preponderance of evidence, it's wise to be skeptical about any claims individuals make.

 

That one goes round and round though right, how many times has the consensus been proven wrong by one man? Yes I understand the odds favor one side but we need to allow room for the little guy to rise above. What we are doing now is making sure he never gets a voice, lest he say something that goes against the consensus and dares to confuse us all. Now as far as peer review and preponderance of evidence when it comes to covid-19 for example. That one is different in my eyes due to the novel nature of the beast. 

 

Another good example was in California where restaurant owners were trying to fight for the right to have outdoor dining. The town council in this one particular area kept repeating this line that they need to follow the data... repeated over and over at the owners, we cannot open it will spread too much. Until the council was asked to present said data in court and it turned out to be all in regards to indoor mask use.

 

 

 

 

Getting one's opinions about science from talking heads rather than looking to the literature is laziness.

 

Agreed, but also more entertaining, hence the attraction. Not saying its right, it is what it is.

 

I probably agree with you guys on more of this stuff than either of us realize. We might disagree on the dangers of existing on the fringe of things. But it seems like some people out there are trying to slowly close the information door. I have to disagree with that on a fundamental level, even if it is letting some nasty bugs into the building.


Edited by FLASHINGROOSTER, 29 July 2021 - 03:58 PM.

  • newmoon likes this

#14 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,787 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 01 August 2021 - 10:42 AM

Even people who've been dead for over a hundred years saw this shit coming.

 

HeCalledIt.jpg


  • Juthro, Cuboid and FLASHINGROOSTER like this

#15 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 3,035 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 03 August 2021 - 09:39 AM

That guy really was a great thinker. A profit of human nature.

 

One only has to study history to get a good idea of how things tend to play out. These days we don't seem to be too far off from Bread and Circus


  • TVCasualty likes this

#16 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,787 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 03 August 2021 - 06:45 PM

That guy really was a great thinker. A profit of human nature.

 

One only has to study history to get a good idea of how things tend to play out. These days we don't seem to be too far off from Bread and Circus

 

When they run out of "bread," they crank up more circuses. And most people seem to be running the hell out of bread.  It does explain a lot.

 

 

So does this:

 

post-102948-0-66473700-1628034249.jpg

Attached Thumbnails

  • dunning-krugerClub.jpg

  • Cuboid likes this

#17 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 3,035 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 04 August 2021 - 07:56 AM

We have a saying for that at work.

 

They know just enough to be dangerous

 

didn't make it far enough to realize you don't know fuck all


  • TVCasualty and Cuboid like this

#18 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,787 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 06 August 2021 - 06:54 PM

Then there's "research."

 

I guess there should have been more emphasis on what exactly counts as legitimate research in what passes for our education system since what a lot of people are doing these days is not it.

 

 

 

 

post-102948-0-33343600-1628293948.jpg

Attached Thumbnails

  • MYRESEARCH.jpg

  • Juthro and FLASHINGROOSTER like this

#19 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 3,035 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 09 August 2021 - 11:15 AM

Hey, that is where I do most of my best research


  • TVCasualty likes this

#20 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,787 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 09 August 2021 - 02:23 PM

Hey, that is where I do most of my best research

 

In that case I would suggest incorporating more fiber into your diet, lol.


  • FLASHINGROOSTER likes this




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!