'Post-Truth Politics' - Collapse in Information Integrity

[d30]

Wow, did this thread go headlong, arms flailing wildly, over the cliff of digression.

Maybe it should have been called Stream of Consciousness. The Good-God-What-Next Thread.

Dern shame, considering the importance of the OP at this terrifyingly meta-volatile point in history.

Hopes for a thread of mass-sanity-rescuing insights dashed.

Oh lost world of once such promise!

Human experiment all but failed. Just waiting now for someone with the pin to pop this balloon.

Better luck with your next experiment, Mother Nature.

[wolfhnd]

The nature of truth is the topic, politics is just the domain in which it is being explored.

[NoShips]

What do you take "conceptual knowledge" to be?

Knowledge that can be communicated through language.

Ah, sounds like what you call conceptual knowledge is the same as what I've been calling propositional knowledge.

[Mossling]

I have no frickin idea what this....

Mainstream politics are now said to be "post-truth", and I say it is post-conceptual-truth, since there is apparently an absolute, non-conceptual world out there - of curved space-time and whatnot, that no matter the conceptual relative truth politicians like to 'spin' about it, space-time is always going to be curved by gravity. One politician might say that relative to his religion or personal beliefs, for example, space-time is not curved, but good luck with his space program if he follows through with those beliefs and expects others to conform. For more 'real' examples, we could look at the history around the proposition of heliocentrism as we have already. Politicians can say what they like - and beyond the responsibility of having to speak accurate conceptual truths, but ultimately nature is going to do its thing.

There was an example of some conceptual 'truths' a few years ago being shown by nature how relative and thus false they were when compared to the absolute truth of the laws of the universe. A religious family tried to cure their daughter of a dangerous illness using prayer alone and the girl died. This revealed the more True truth of the absolute world.

So the practice of pursuing and maintaining a grasp on truth is the process of helping relative truth to approximate the absolute as perfectly as possible - so that we can explore space, and heal people effectively, among many other things. Politicians are concerned with these issues of course, and so for politics to become 'post-truth' is a very dangerous situation - it points to politicians not being concerned with respecting nature; their own or the universe's, and that way only leads to cancers.

[NoShips]

I didn't write that! Some other vulgarian did :)

(I mean the quote in your post directly above. You'll find the culprit at the bottom of the previous page.)

[Serpent]

It was this vulgarian who got hopelessly lost in dead philosophers, bicycles and Emperors' drawers, or whatever truth something is supposed to illustrate that isn't really there but you can convince enough fools that it is not only there but significant.

Mossling -- Mainstream politics are now said to be "post-truth", and I say it is post-conceptual-truth, since there is apparently an absolute, non-conceptual world out there - of curved space-time and whatnot, that no matter the conceptual relative truth politicians like to 'spin' about it, space-time is always going to be curved by gravity. One politician might say that relative to his religion or personal beliefs, for example, space-time is not curved, but good luck with his space program if he follows through with those beliefs and expects others to conform. For more 'real' examples, we could look at the history around the proposition of heliocentrism as we have already. Politicians can say what they like - and beyond the responsibility of having to speak accurate conceptual truths, but ultimately nature is going to do its thing.

No. It's simply that they can lie and get away with it, because no vertebrata in the journalistic or communication broadcasting realm will stand up and holler "Liar!" , at the same time an opposing politician can and does exactly that during a legitimate president's state of the union address, and is not thrown out on his ear.

Galileo isn't involved. Einstein isn't involved. Dawkins isn't involved.
The ghosts in this machine are George Orwell's and Edward Murrow's.

[wolfhnd]

It isn't so much the facts that make the media "untruthful" but selective reporting and hyperbole. I'm not convinced that from a historical perspective it's that it is that much worse. To some extent we are better informed. WikiPedia's and other alternative news sources make it hard for traditional media to bury information.

Selective reporting and hyperbole is nothing new. The best propaganda has always been the truth. It is just easier to see through the fog in the information age. Where people in the past got information from 2 or 3 sources they now have thousands to choose from.

[Paul Anthony]

Many sources or fewer sources. What matters is that the sources are complete and accurate. I am particularly upset by the use of statistics to give the illusion of fact. "Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics".

But it may not be an intentional lie. Statistics quoted without context can be misleading, and may even fool the reporter. In this way, the reporter may pass on his/her own confusion as fact.

Morgan Housel has written a brief explanation of the difference between statistics and facts, with excellent examples from economics - an area often riddled by confusing statistics (perhaps the main reason so few people understand economics).

http://www.collaborativefund.com/blog/the-difference-between-a-stat-and-a-fact/

[Lomax]

Many sources or fewer sources. What matters is that the sources are complete and accurate.

I think completeness is too much to ask. If the New York Times really were "all the news that's fit to print", we wouldn't have enough ink to print it.

[Paul Anthony]

Many sources or fewer sources. What matters is that the sources are complete and accurate.

I think completeness is too much to ask. If the New York Times really were "all the news that's fit to print", we wouldn't have enough ink to print it.

Okay, I'd settle for accurate. Is that too much to ask? ;)

[wolfhnd]

Many sources or fewer sources. What matters is that the sources are complete and accurate.

I think completeness is too much to ask. If the New York Times really were "all the news that's fit to print", we wouldn't have enough ink to print it.

Okay, I'd settle for accurate. Is that too much to ask? ;)

You ignored my point which was that accuracy is largely irrelevant because selective reporting is a more powerful propaganda.

[Paul Anthony]

You ignored my point which was that accuracy is largely irrelevant because selective reporting is a more powerful propaganda.

I'm not a big fan of propaganda. When did accuracy become irrelevant? I must have missed the memo. (I managed a quality control department for 14 years. I like to think my work had some relevance).

[wolfhnd]

You ignored my point which was that accuracy is largely irrelevant because selective reporting is a more powerful propaganda.

I'm not a big fan of propaganda. When did accuracy become irrelevant? I must have missed the memo. (I managed a quality control department for 14 years. I like to think my work had some relevance).

Facts out of context, facts omitted, facts exaggerated, facts that are irrelevant, facts that are misleading, facts that are only accurate reporting of someone else's lies, facts that are over simplify, that is how bias is manifested not inaccuracy.

There is a problem with inaccuracy but most often it is related to laziness, news cycles, stupidity, arrogance, bad sources, and unavoidable prejudice. These are problems regardless of bias. Propaganda uses accurate statements to distort the big picture. In the past propaganda may have used out and out lies but it is more sophisticated today.

For example there was a factual reporting of a woman's claim that Trump molested her on a plane that was widely publicized. When eyewitnesses discredit her account it got little coverage. When WikiLeaks proved that Clinton committed crimes the media ignored it or focused on irrelevant side issues. The fact that Trump is something of a pig is only consistent with how women behave around rich men and is hardly news worthy for those over the age of 10. Likewise the fact that Clinton got preferential treatment is hardly news worthy for anyone not living in a cave. It is in the balance of the news that the propaganda is most evident.

[Lomax]

When WikiLeaks proved that Clinton committed crimes the media ignored it or focused on irrelevant side issues.

I'm abashed to say I missed that, unless you're repeating this misleading story.

I must say that I find this...

The fact that Trump is something of a pig is only consistent with how women behave around rich men and is hardly news worthy for those over the age of 10.

...a little disturbing. Trump is innocent until guilty but that doesn't mean we should assume his (many) accusers to be liars just because he is rich. I have never heard so many open, straightforward apologetics for rape and sexual harrassment as I have this year. The things that politics can do to people.

[Serpent]

Seems to me, in the old days - somewhere between Hearst and FOX - editors would ask " "Have you checked the facts?" and would not print an article until that had been done. "Somebody said something about somebody" wouldn't be a news story. There would be no story until all the people involved had been contacted and their version recorded, then compared with other sources, witnesses, official records, etc. Maybe even a side-bar of background information, and statistics (in context!). The weekend edition would explain the same stories in greater depth, if you were still interested.

That wouldn't prevent publishers or managing editors showing their political bias, holding back some stories, giving others more play, but a quick look at the editorial would tell you exactly what their bias was.
Only the gutter press would print innuendo, unsupported allegations and gossip.

It was slower, but it worked pretty well.

[wolfhnd]

When WikiLeaks proved that Clinton committed crimes the media ignored it or focused on irrelevant side issues.

I'm abashed to say I missed that, unless you're repeating this misleading story.

I must say that I find this...

The fact that Trump is something of a pig is only consistent with how women behave around rich men and is hardly news worthy for those over the age of 10.

...a little disturbing. Trump is innocent until guilty but that doesn't mean we should assume his (many) accusers to be liars just because he is rich. I have never heard so many open, straightforward apologetics for rape and sexual harrassment as I have this year. The things that politics can do to people.

Bill Clinton

[Serpent]

Bill Clinton

What about him is relevant to the current situation?

[wolfhnd]

If you don't like my examples come up with your own. Cognitive dissonance is a related issue but I covered it by pointing out people get the bias they pay for according to their subscriptions.

[d30]

Anyone have any ideas on how to rescue truth in a "post-truth" era? For starters, how about:

one or two greatly expanded, amply publicly funded, non-profit (no always truth-corrupting advertising) snopes.com-like sites where claims, statements, especially bullet points like "reducing corporate taxes creates jobs," can be fact checked.

Once recognized by all as reliable sources of truth, impetuous causes like Brexit and demagogues who spew bullet-point falsehoods would be exposed, no longer listened to, and fail, unlike what happened in this year's U.S. election, etc. Such sizable enterprises would create a whole lot of investigative and other research jobs too.

It would certainly be worth the national investment, restoring and maintaining sanity, stability, and all-benefiting progress too because much counter-productive conflict of today, based on opposing beliefs would be eliminated, replaced with greater and greater citizen harmony under the unifying quality of truth (science), clearing the road to accelerating advancement for all, in all ways.

(Having two such sites, independently operated, would guard against corruption of one because the second one would expose something went haywire at the other one. Secondly, the two, if uncorrupted, would verify each other, doubling the credence of them, and confidence in them.)

[Paul Anthony]

Anyone have any ideas on how to rescue truth in a "post-truth" era? For starters, how about:

one or two greatly expanded, amply publicly funded, non-profit (no always truth-corrupting advertising) snopes.com-like sites where claims, statements, especially bullet points like "reducing corporate taxes creates jobs," can be fact checked.

Once recognized by all as reliable sources of truth, impetuous causes like Brexit and demagogues who spew bullet-point falsehoods would be exposed, no longer listened to, and fail, unlike what happened in this year's U.S. election, etc. Such sizable enterprises would create a whole lot of investigative and other research jobs too.

It would certainly be worth the national investment, restoring and maintaining sanity, stability, and all-benefiting progress too because much counter-productive conflict of today, based on opposing beliefs would be eliminated, replaced with greater and greater citizen harmony under the unifying quality of truth (science), clearing the road to accelerating advancement for all, in all ways.

(Having two such sites, independently operated, would guard against corruption of one because the second one would expose something went haywire at the other one. Secondly, the two, if uncorrupted, would verify each other, doubling the credence of them, and confidence in them.)

It sounds great except for the "publicly funded" part. If that means government funded we run the risk that it becomes a government propaganda machine.

[Mossling]

No. It's simply that they can lie and get away with it, because no vertebrata in the journalistic or communication broadcasting realm will stand up and holler "Liar!" , at the same time an opposing politician can and does exactly that during a legitimate president's state of the union address, and is not thrown out on his ear.

Everyone is a liar - as soon as you communicate a concept as 'the absolute truth' as it appears to you, you have spoken a lie. Socrates and the sophists were apparently fond of pointing out the mere relativity of conceptual facts. This is why I have said that facts need to have the intention to approach the absolute truth built into their context - to have philosophical rigour behind them. If the person championing the use of facts is a scientologist, for example, would you trust them more over, say, an agnostic? It's likely one would trust an agnostic more because of the practical role of facts within their philosophical outlook.

With regards to the current political age, it just seems that sophistry has become more sophisticated. Politicians know much better what certain target groups are thinking, consuming, working on, etc. - through Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and so on. This means that they can pick their words and topics for greater influential effect, especially when the masses they are targeting do not even know what sophistry is in the first place. Relative conceptual truths - absolute lies - are considered absolute truths by the poorly educated; "Hilary Clinton said something nasty about me - isn't she nasty?!" becomes "Hilary Clinton is nasty - to everyone, even her own mother". Interestingly, these 'black or white' absolutes tend to occur most easily when we are emotionally upset - they are called cognitive distortions.

Anyone have any ideas on how to rescue truth in a "post-truth" era?

I think compulsory 'philosophy of truth' classes in school - covering the difference between the sophists' relative truth and Hegel's "absolute mind", and the significance of words and classification according to Wittgenstein and Foucault. That's a broad overview, but I think it is a necessary education in the 'Information Age'. Stone Age people understood flint very well, now we have to get to similar grips with our modern tools.

[Serpent]

If you don't like my examples come up with your own. Cognitive dissonance is a related issue but I covered it by pointing out people get the bias they pay for according to their subscriptions.

It's not that I don't like it; it's that I can't relate it. Some time, one guy did something, or was accused of doing something. Another time, another guy did something or was accused of doing something. At both of these times, the accusation was in the news. Also, some other things were in the news.
I don't see what biases are being highlighted in what way.
I don't see the example. You allude; you do not elucidate.

[Serpent]

Everyone is a liar - as soon as you communicate a concept as 'the absolute truth' as it appears to you, you have spoken a lie.

But who, except the pope, ever claims to have an absolute truth? Who claimed to have, and who asked for "absolute" in political reportage, or in a campaign speech? The standard of truth here is not of huge philosophical or all-encompassing scientific proportions: it's readily accessible to the average mind with a reasonable public education.
I'm not concerned with dead sophists or scientologists. All I claimed was that the truth value of any informative statement depends on its containing the number and kind of verifiable facts required to answer a specific, delimited question.

With regards to the current political age, it just seems that sophistry has become more sophisticated.

Have you been listening at all? The lies being told are ever more crude and obvious. Kissinger told porkies in rotund, convoluted paragraphs full of misdirection and dysinformation. GW Bush put forth spokesmen with some degree of credibility - or at least credentials - who at least pretended to show some half-assed evidence. Trump stands up there and shouts bald-faced lies right in the camera, and the his audience simply doesn't care.

All of your subtlety is wasted on them. They want it in three words of one syllable:
Trump digs coal.

[wolfhnd]

Serpent you are right subtle is not going to be helpful in the public arena but some reform is needed in higher education. Post Modernism needs to be challenged by other philosophical schools. When you have people saying objective reality is an illusion and totally rejecting empiricism there is a problem.

[Serpent]

Serpent you are right subtle is not going to be helpful in the public arena but some reform is needed in higher education. Post Modernism needs to be challenged by other philosophical schools. When you have people saying objective reality is an illusion and totally rejecting empiricism there is a problem.

That's all true. But I sincerely doubt a change in university philosophy courses will be very helpful to the deplorable behaviour of political basket-cases. They're not consistently voting against their own interest because of anything promulgated by a school of philosophy or a cosmology; they're doing it because they've been deliberately misled and riled up by unscrupulous, manipulative preachers and shills.

How about a decent program of health and nutrition for all the children? How about good primary and secondary public schools all over the country - ones that insist on 100% literacy and numeracy by graduation? How about civics courses at each level? How about honest science textbooks for all students?
How about competent, responsible news reporting?

[wolfhnd]

Serpent you are right subtle is not going to be helpful in the public arena but some reform is needed in higher education. Post Modernism needs to be challenged by other philosophical schools. When you have people saying objective reality is an illusion and totally rejecting empiricism there is a problem.

That's all true. But I sincerely doubt a change in university philosophy courses will be very helpful to the deplorable behaviour of political basket-cases. They're not consistently voting against their own interest because of anything promulgated by a school of philosophy or a cosmology; they're doing it because they've been deliberately misled and riled up by unscrupulous, manipulative preachers and shills.

How about a decent program of health and nutrition for all the children? How about good primary and secondary public schools all over the country - ones that insist on 100% literacy and numeracy by graduation? How about civics courses at each level? How about honest science textbooks for all students?
How about competent, responsible news reporting?

I think you are going after the low hanging fruit, throwing money at problems while necessary has not solved our problems.

[wolfhnd]

I think I'm done here because I'm not equipped to deal with the intent of the OP. We have reached a point where all I could do is quote philosophers. It was a good discussion so no disrespect to those who I didn't reply too.

[Serpent]

I think you are going after the low hanging fruit,

Yeah, the ones the children can reach. So they don't get scurvy.

throwing money at problems while necessary has not solved our problems.

What money? I never mentioned money, but even if it had been about money, do you honestly believe that investing in a healthy, literate and informed population is "throwing" it?
Do you think money isn't already going down the sinkhole of malnutrition and mal-education?

[wolfhnd]

I cover you truth and raise you one.

I'm not going to play you game because it is the problem.

[Serpent]

It's a whole lot of problems, all of them solvable.
I have no game. I'm just trying to imagine a happier, cleaner, better-functioning world.
I dislike waste.