The Problem With Trusting Unreliable Sources

[ages]

@PatternChaser

@ages

HOW is ‘objectivity’ recognised, realised, or known, exactly?

In practice, in the real world, it isn’t, and probably can’t be.

Is ‘this’ an objective claim or another subjective claim?
Also, what do you mean by ‘real world’, exactly? What is the so-called ‘real world’ relative or comparative to, exactly?

@PatternChaser

Objectivity is an intellectual concept.

Objectivity is an intellectual concept of ‘what’, exactly?
Are not all ‘concepts’ intellectual? And,
Is an intellectual concept a subjective point of view anyway?

@PatternChaser

As such, its intended meaning is clear to many philosophers, even though it can’t be observed in the real world.

So, supposedly, because ‘objectivity’ is an ‘intellectual concept’, this means that the intended meaning of ‘objectivity’ is clear, but only to ‘many philosophers’ only, right?

What do the other so-called “philosophers” interpret ‘objectivity’s’ meaning to be, exactly, and why is the ‘intended meaning’ not clear to ‘those ones’, exactly? By the way, who are the ‘many philosophers’ here, and who are the rest, exactly?

Also, so the ‘intended meaning’ of ‘objectivity’ is clear, but only to some people only, although ‘objectivity’ can not be observed in the ‘real world’ anyway, right?

Can ‘objectivity’ (whatever its ‘intended meaning’ is, exactly), be seen in the ‘non real world’? Also, and by the way, whatever is ‘objectivity’s intended meaning’, exactly. Thas is, of course, if ‘you’ are clear about its meaning.

@PatternChaser

< There’s one exception, though, that of Objective Reality itself.

Ah okay. Is ‘Objective Reality Itself’ of the ‘real world’ or of the ‘non real world’?

@PatternChaser

I can KNOW nothing of its nature, but I am satisfied that I can prove its existence to myself, thanks to Descartes’ work. >

So, ‘you’ needed someone else for ‘you’ to know of ‘Objective Reality Itself’s existence’, correct?

Are ‘you’ able and willing to inform ‘us’ readers here of what ‘Objective Reality Itself’ really is, exactly?

@PatternChaser

Objectivity describes mind-independent correspondence with that which actually is.

Okay. So, is ‘Objectivity’ the word that describes the physical human body’s correspondence with ‘that’ which actually is, minus any thinking and concepting (or what some call “mind-dependence”)?

@PatternChaser

@ages

What do you imagine the words “omni-everything God” is even referring to, exactly?

A hypothetical being whose knowledge, senses and perception (etc) are perfect, without limit or error.

In absolutely any way at all could ‘this’ be a possibility, to you?

@PatternChaser

Such a being sees reality as it actually is. We humans can’t do that.

Although ‘you’ just described ‘a way’ that the human body actually does correspond with ‘that’, which actually is, without “mind” or conceptual dependence, correct?

Are ‘you’ open to the idea that there might just be an actual way to see ‘Reality’ as It actually is?
Or, is ‘this’ just an absolute impossibility, to you?

[Tom_Storm]

@LordKing777

I have realized that we need a more Trusted framework to navigate reality, one built upon an accepted truth. People nowadays are using Reddit and Google to seek truth, but Reddit is not absolute truth, and it is full of bad information, and outright propaganda. A lot of people on Reddit are wrong, yet they speak with confidence as though their opinions are established facts.

This is an interesting question. I have not used or gone onto Reddit. I would also not think it possible to have 100% reliability built into any information source.

In terms of unreliable sources, we might include such notorious examples as advertising, the White House (most administrations), the Bible (or pretty much any holy book that says a thing), and public opinion.

I tend to think that when we elevate an information source as reliable, it is either because it aligns with encultured personal values, or because it is a source that has consistently produced reliable results, like mathematics. But when it comes to settling questions of value, how can we have a reliable source for those, since values are tendentious to begin with?

I can’t imagine a completely trusted framework, but I am happy to hear the evidence. Perhaps fallibilism is a contender; we never acquire knowledge that amounts to capital-T Truth, although there are probably contingent truths, such as what year an event happened or how far away London is, or teh chemical composition of water. Even in these cases, however, our knowledge remains open to revision if new evidence emerges. So perhaps the goal is not to find an infallible source of knowledge/truth, but to develop methods that are reliable enough to correct our errors and improve our understanding over time.

[LordKing777]

@Tom_Storm

because it is a source that has consistently produced reliable results, like mathematics. But when it comes to settling questions of value, how can we have a reliable source for those, since values are tendentious to begin with?

We want sources that are as close to the truth as possible, because truth provides value and leads to more reliable results.

[ages]

@Mijin1

As I’ve said in previous threads: IMO this is the biggest threat to mankind right now.

What is the ‘this’ word here referring to, exactly?

@Mijin1

For humans to solve problems, we have to first acknowledge them.

Acknowledging ‘problems’ happens and occurs much simpler and much easier after people realise what ‘a problem’ even is, exactly.

@Mijin1

And nowadays people live in information bubbles where they are told repeatedly, and passionately, on a daily basis, that climate change is a hoax, vaccines cause autism, elections are fraudulent, whites are being replaced etc etc. So we fight each other and ignore the genuine problems.

Is that why ‘you’ fight with others and ignore the ‘genuine problems’?

By the way, instead of ignoring the ‘genuine problems’ here, in a philosophy forum, would you like to present and acknowledge the ‘genuine problems’ for ‘us’ here, so that ‘we’ can solve them, together, or for you?

@Mijin1

The typical response to this is that disinformation and propaganda are nothing new. And that’s correct. However, the scale of it now, and the ease of making believable pictures, video, audio, getting AI to find anything to defend a predetermined conclusion…it makes everything that has gone before look like child’s play.

This could sound like you have just ‘making excuses’ to ‘give up’.

See, only when you present what you call the ‘genuine problems’, in Life, are ‘we’ then able to solve them, for you.

@Mijin1

One of the leading theories for how/why Hominids evolved big brains so quickly is partly because of the invention of lying.

Well, it is said that it was when hominids started lying that was the beginning of human beings, or when human beings evolved into creation anyway. Well, that is one story anyway, presented in the bible.

@Mijin1

That is; instead of the key selection pressure being the external environment, it became our ability to understand and evaluate what other Hominids were communicating, and therefore an “arms race” quickly ensued where the selection pressure was to be as, or more, smart than those around us.

But lying is being stupid, and not smart at all. But, if people want to be ‘as smart’ as others around them, then lying and thus being ‘as stupid’ as others, is also being ‘as smart’ as them.

[Tom_Storm]

@LordKing777

We want sources that are as close to the truth as possible, because truth provides value and leads to more reliable results.

I understand that’s what you are arguing for, what’s an example of this?

[LordKing777]

@Tom_Storm

I understand that’s what you are arguing for, what’s an example of this?

We want more verified sources and input from people with expertise who actually know what they’re talking about. We can’t accept the opinions of random people on Reddit and their feelings

Like you said, the Bible is a trusted source for understanding Christianity because it comes from the Christian tradition. On Reddit, however, you often have people who have little understanding of the thing they are talking about and they might even get upvoted

Another example: when you want to learn chess, you open videos from Magnus Carlsen or any other Master player to learn. You don’t open some random guy who barely knows how to play chess and then treat his opinion as equally reliable, That’s what happen on reddit, people who are low elo in chess giving advice and getting upvoted.

[Tom_Storm]

@LordKing777

Like you said, the Bible is a trusted source for understanding Christianity because it comes from the Christian tradition.

No, actually I said this:

@Tom_Storm

In terms of unreliable sources, we might include such notorious examples as advertising, the White House (most administrations), the Bible (or pretty much any holy book that says a thing), and public opinion.

@LordKing777

We want more verified sources and input from people with expertise who actually know what they’re talking about. We can’t accept the opinions of random people on Reddit and their feelings

I think this is where it gets tricky, how do we decide which expertise counts as and which does not?

[LordKing777]

@Tom_Storm

I think this is where it gets tricky, how do we decide which expertise counts as and which does not?

I think intuition can actually help here. You can often get a sense of whether someone genuinely understands a subject by listening to how they explain it, how deeply they reason about it

If someone consistently produces strong results in a particular field, solves difficult problems, and has a proven track record, that gives us a concrete reason to consider them an expert

[Tom_Storm]

@LordKing777

I think intuition can actually help here. You can often get a sense of whether someone genuinely understands a subject by listening to how they explain it, how deeply they reason about it

I’d be less enthusiastic here. I think intuition is often wrong and people are easily swayed by rhetoric and sophistry and false promises which appear authoritative. That’s pretty much how politics works.

@LordKing777

If someone consistently produces strong results in a particular field, solves difficult problems, and has a proven track record, that gives us a concrete reason to consider them an expert

I think that’s probably closer, but it sounds more like the scientific approach, where science develops and tests models that reliably explain and predict phenomena. Of course, there are people who reject particular scientific conclusions on account of their values.

[LordKing777]

@Tom_Storm

I think that’s probably closer, but it sounds more like the scientific approach, where science develops and tests models that reliably explain and predict phenomena. Of course, there are people who reject particular scientific conclusions on account of their values.

it’s about expertise. A chess player with 5 years of experience and proven results isn’t on the same level as someone with 30 minutes of experience.

And even two people with 5 years of experience can differ greatly a Grandmaster clearly has a deeper level of expertise than someone who remains at a low rank despite having 5 years

Google is doing exactly that: it gives more weight to information from sources with greater expertise and authority on the subject, rather than treating every random opinion as equally valuable.

Reddit is not doing that, they are treating every opinion as equally plausible, which is wrong. These days, I perceive Reddit as an artificial platform, it’s full of lies. That’s why we want more trusted sources.

[Tom_Storm]

Got ya. Well I guess going back to expertise is a rather old fashioned idea and pretty much how things were done for most of my life.

What’s an example of a type of truth you are thinking of that requires expert adjudication?

[LordKing777]

The business and finance space is full of people spreading nonsense about money, investing, and how to build wealth. Reddit is especially bad for this, there are plenty of people with little real-world financial experience confidently spreading bad or completely false information about money.

Crypto bros constantly push nonsense about “investing.” if you Followed their delusions about trading crypto you’ll almost likely get scammed and lose money.

Fortunately, the idea that crypto is just a space where everyone loses has become popular, and I know from experience, because Reddit’s crazy hype cost me a lot of money.

They should make it painfully obvious that you can lose money indefinitely, but their delusions still costed me money.

Crypto is simply not a reliable way to build wealth, Just like reddit is not the best space to find trustworthy information.

[Tom_Storm]

@LordKing777

The business and finance space is full of people spreading nonsense about money, investing, and how to build wealth.

Sure, and spurious financial advice and con artistry were massive problems years before the internet. There were umpteen shonky pamphleteers and authors, workshop shysters and pyramid-scheme peddlers.

It’s not like bullshit is a new phenomenon.

Setting aside crypto and Reddit. Your original OP was about truth. Did you mean capital-T Truth, or were you simply referring to reliable practical knowledge? If it’s the latter, then clearly expertise is the best approach. If I have cancer, I’m not going to turn to crystal channelling for healing; I’m going to an oncologist. That’s not to say there aren’t bad oncologists, but I know of no good crystal channellers.

When it comes to things like advice around engineering, medicine or finances, it seems pretty clear that we should avoid untheorised opinion and take advice from people with relevant expertise.

You wrote this:

@LordKing777

I have been contemplating this subject for a long time as a truth seeker, and I have realized that we need a more Trusted framework to navigate reality, one built upon an accepted truth.

This seems more metaphysical and much broader in scope than mere expertise, or am I reading this wrong? What you write could also be a summary of how many skeptics see the world, as in the practice of withholding belief or confidence in a claim until there is sufficient evidence or good reason to accept it.

[LordKing777]

@Tom_Storm

Your original OP was about truth. Did you mean capital-T Truth, or were you simply referring to reliable practical knowledge?

I am talking about absolute reliability, both practically and metaphysically. Since people make mistakes all the time, there is no reason to believe they are somehow immune to error on a metaphysical level.

I didn’t talk with you about metaphysics for a reason, because it’s harder to verify

[Tom_Storm]

@LordKing777

I am talking about absolute reliability, both practically and metaphysically.

Ok. Good to know.

@LordKing777

Since people make mistakes all the time, there is no reason to believe they are somehow immune to error on a metaphysical level.

I certainly agree that people make mistakes. I would never assume anyone is right about anything, apart from the ordinary, easily verifiable facts of everyday life that we rarely have any reason to question: places, names, locations, dates, whether the cat is on the mat…

@LordKing777

I didn’t talk with you about metaphysics for a reason, because it’s harder to verify

Indeed. What’s an example of a metaphysical truth you believe you can verify?

[PatternChaser]

@ages

@PatternChaser

@ages

HOW is ‘objectivity’ recognised, realised, or known, exactly?

In practice, in the real world, it isn’t, and probably can’t be.

Is ‘this’ an objective claim or another subjective claim?
Also, what do you mean by ‘real world’, exactly? What is the so-called ‘real world’ relative or comparative to, exactly?

I’m sorry, but it seems to me that you are being deliberately obtuse, for reasons that I cannot fathom or follow. And so on, for most of the rest of your post.

You seem to be intentionally-unaware of the commonly-used and -accepted definitions of words that are common in philosophical discourse, if nowhere else. If you don’t know or use the vocabulary, how will anyone else understand?

*****************

@ages

Are ‘you’ open to the idea that there might just be an actual way to see ‘Reality’ as It actually is?

I’m always open to any possibility that cannot be refuted or disproven. But I am unaware of any such thing, nor can I imagine how such a thing could be.

[Mijin1]

@ages

What is the ‘this’ word here referring to, exactly?

The thread topic. Trusting unreliable sources.

@ages

By the way, instead of ignoring the ‘genuine problems’ here, in a philosophy forum, would you like to present and acknowledge the ‘genuine problems’ for ‘us’ here, so that ‘we’ can solve them, together, or for you?

I don’t know why you’re taking such a tone and putting things in quotes etc.
From my previous post it’s pretty obvious what I mean by genuine problems because I said, for example, that disinformation is leading people to ignore or handwave issues like climate change. The obvious implication is that I consider climate change to be a genuine problem.
The same is true for the other things I listed.

@ages

But lying is being stupid, and not smart at all.

By what logic? My own view is that lying is not necessarily smart or stupid; there are different levels of lying, from the clumsy to the calculated (this is all putting the morality aside for the moment; I’m not advocating that anyone should lie).

Being able to work out when you’re being lied to has the closer correlation with intelligence, and is the factor that the Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis is mostly concerned with.

In the modern world though, I’d say our instinctive ability to discern lies has largely been steamrolled by advances in communication techniques and technology. We now need to explicitly learn critical thinking principles, lest we be like a windows 7 computer with no antivirus connecting to the internet.

[Christoffer]

@LordKing777

I have been contemplating this subject for a long time as a truth seeker, and I have realized that we need a more Trusted framework to navigate reality, one built upon an accepted truth.

You mean like the entire field of scientific research, with its methods focused on collecting data and find what is beyond human biases and fallacies?

Or the act of philosophy in logical deduction and induction? Or observation and collective engagement in honest observations?

People in these fields already know the lose nature of what “truth” is, and know that it’s not objective “truth” that should be at the center, but the “absolutely relentless pursuit for truth”

It is in the act of finding truth that we find stable grounds. It’s that process that is the foundation for a good world, rather than attempting to establish a definite truth. And the process of finding truth is also a process of forming the right tools for doing so and not enable someone to grab control of that journey, for the sake of their own truth at the end of it.

A big problem is that people believe these processes are already finalized, but even the scientific process is constantly evolving to become more rigorous, better at sifting out biased opinions and selfish agendas. Often when people talk about the problems with science, they use outdated examples of practices. But science today compared to even 20 years ago is different.

So I would argue we already have the framework you want. The problem is that the world does not listen, not that the framework and process isn’t there. The opinions, politics and moronic ideas of the world are unfortunately in larger quantity, and it’s by popular demand that we find ourselves in self-destruction.

[Hanover]

@LordKing777

A lot of people on Reddit are wrong, yet they speak with confidence as though their opinions are established facts.

I don’t follow. You start by saying that we all have limited perspectives that necessarily limit our ability to know truth, but then you assert you know the truth and that the Reddit folks are wrong, which means you have transcended the inherent subjectivity that clouds others’ thoughts and you know they’re wrong.

Isn’t the answer for you just to share with us your basis for knowing the Reddit folks are wrong and then we can apply that standard so that we know we aren’t wrong?

The problem I think you do identify isn’t that there are infinite worldviews that make consensus of what is true impossible, but it’s that people who sufficiently share the same worldview refuse to accept the consequences of their own reality.

That is, it is likely the Reddit folks agree with your fundamental logical principles and they share in the same rules you do in verifying empirical reality, yet they refuse to accept the consequences of those accepted premises. It’s one thing to accept that the laws of nature cannot be violated and to still allow that miracles can happen, but quite another to accept that miracles occur because there is a God who performs them as needed. The former is contradictory. The latter reveals an entirely different worldview. Perhaps that’s why you are assured they are wrong: as in, wrong under the own assumptions.

[LordKing777]

@Hanover

Isn’t the answer for you just to share with us your basis for knowing the Reddit folks are wrong and then we can apply that standard so that we know we aren’t wrong?

Would you rather learn how to build wealth from a millionaire or a broke Redditor? Only one of them has proof it works.