Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Mo_reese]

Even so, I'd rather that there is a place where complaints - whatever complaints - can be freely aired like X than for such an arena to be banned or put under government control.

I am aware of where you stand on Gaza. My point was that during the Iraq War the American public was in ignorant bliss about the war due to the government biased media. Not the case with re. to Gaza.
As far as Twitter, the content changed dramatically after Musk took over. He is clearly showing his right wing bias which isn't good.

[Sy Borg]

Even so, I'd rather that there is a place where complaints - whatever complaints - can be freely aired like X than for such an arena to be banned or put under government control.

I am aware of where you stand on Gaza. My point was that during the Iraq War the American public was in ignorant bliss about the war due to the government biased media. Not the case with re. to Gaza.
As far as Twitter, the content changed dramatically after Musk took over. He is clearly showing his right wing bias which isn't good.

I find X is simply a forum of complaint because people are allowed to gripe about everything that bugs them, while other forums are more curated. Try searching for any kind of -ism on X - both left and right wing - and I guarantee you'll find posts of complaint. It's a Town Square full of people getting stuff off their chests because they are not allowed to do so anyhere else.

It's good that people have a place where they can be heard. Then the ideas go through a kind of natural selection. The biggest issue is that most posts on X are painfully dumb and uninformed. Thus, lots of misinformation is embedded amongst actual information, with little quality control. Good material is akin to pearls in a bucket of sand. Then again, that's true of all media.

So, there is a place where the grumpy can get their angst out of their systems, while active users (who don't just follow what the algorithm serves up) can find plenty of good material not to be found elsewhere.

Given that governments and media are the biggest suppliers of misinformation, their attempt to become the arbiters of what construes "misinformation" is outrageously corrupt and hypocritical.

[LuckyR]

Misinformation is not the problem, citizen gullibility/stupidity is the problem. Alas, you cannot successfully outlaw stupidity. Censorship of misinformation just feeds the Big Brother conspiracy theories that the segment of the audience simpleminded enough to believe the misinformation in the first place are likely to also believe. All you can do is Fact Check the misinformation.

However, there is another, larger issue than folks believing misinformation. Namely in this, the Post Truth era, many decide on their conclusion first (that fits their worldview) then go in search of information that supports this conclusion (while ignoring data that contradicts it). Thus there is a ready-made audience for the misinformation, specifically those who want to find "data" to support their worldview.

[Lagayascienza]

True. We cannot be forced to want to think clearly and check facts. Confirmation bias is more passive, easier, especially in this era of oxymoronic "alternative truth".

[Pattern-chaser]

Misinformation is not the problem, citizen gullibility/stupidity is the problem.

Yes, but as you go on to say, those who are gullible or ... mentally-challenged are those most likely to be fooled by misinformation. So do we protect them in some way, or would that be us seeking to 'guide' the gullible toward *our* beliefs?

Your identification of the problem is accurate, I think. So now we have to come up with an answer to the problem, which is rather more difficult, I think.

[Sy Borg]

All you can do is Fact Check the misinformation.

That's the point. Who does the fact-checking? Who checks the fact checkers? It's not uncommon for fact-checkers to give skewed assessments based on biases either driven by ideology or money.

Do we trust politicians, media or universities - the biggest perpetrators of more manipulative misinformation?

[Mo_reese]

Misinformation is not the problem, citizen gullibility/stupidity is the problem.

Yes, but as you go on to say, those who are gullible or ... mentally-challenged are those most likely to be fooled by misinformation. So do we protect them in some way, or would that be us seeking to 'guide' the gullible toward *our* beliefs?

Your identification of the problem is accurate, I think. So now we have to come up with an answer to the problem, which is rather more difficult, I think.

Gullibility falls on a spectrum plus some people choose to accept misinformation as they can't be bothered with or can't handle the truth. I have repeatedly tried to engage people in discussions related to “the truth” but few want to even go there. For example, who blew up the Nord Stream pipeline? The Norwegians and Swedish both investigated and both decided to let it slide. Seymour Hersh, investigative journalist, claims that it was done by the US. That they had the most to gain and they have the means to do it that few, if any other nation have. Noted “fact checker” SNOPES, evaluated Hersh's claim and after trying to disparage him they concluded that he didn't have enough evidence to make his case. A lot of Americans want to believe their government and reject attempts to counter propaganda.
I think the bottom line is that those with the power can and will feed us misinformation and there isn't much we can do about it.

[Sy Borg]

For example, who blew up the Nord Stream pipeline?

Until it was blown up I didn't know that it existed, so all I can do is rely on what I've been told. Who do I believe? The establishment, which in my experience has lied to me all my life to manipulate me, or do I believe individuals who have lied to me all my life for their ego?

It seems that every bad event in history was caused by Rockerfeller, the CIA, Bill Gates, George Soros, Elon Musk and some others I've probably forgotten. In some cases it's no doubt true. People at the top have schemed together since humans first became social. A tribal leader was only so because of the alliances he formed with the strongest tribe members.

In a way, the dynamic hasn't much changed, only the scale has changed. Now leaders rely on oligarchs. To be fair, I think that those at the top are not as omnisciently strategic as some conspiracy theorists think. They will also seem to be coordinating when it's really group selection pressures, hubris or groupthink.

[Pattern-chaser]

All you can do is Fact Check the misinformation.

That's the point. Who does the fact-checking? Who checks the fact checkers? It's not uncommon for fact-checkers to give skewed assessments based on biases either driven by ideology or money.

Do we trust politicians, media or universities - the biggest perpetrators of more manipulative misinformation?

Yes, fact-checkers can be mistaken, or deceptive. But most of them aren't, I don't think. This is getting to the issues we have these days with trust, and whether we are prepared to believe the advice 'experts' give us.

If we can't trust anyone — and maybe we can't? — then where do we go from here? Don't we have to risk it, sometimes, and trust others? We exercise our judgement as best we can, but no one person can know everything that humans know. So sometimes, experts know what the rest of us don't.

Sometimes we should trust advisors; sometimes we *must* trust advisors?

I think the bottom line is that those with the power can and will feed us misinformation and there isn't much we can do about it.

We can do our best. We can exercise judgement on the reliability of any or all advisors, but in the end we could be wrong to do so. So does that mean we should do nothing, believe nothing? Or must we do the best we can, and sometimes risk trusting our experts and advisors?

[Sy Borg]

All you can do is Fact Check the misinformation.

That's the point. Who does the fact-checking? Who checks the fact checkers? It's not uncommon for fact-checkers to give skewed assessments based on biases either driven by ideology or money.

Do we trust politicians, media or universities - the biggest perpetrators of more manipulative misinformation?

Yes, fact-checkers can be mistaken, or deceptive. But most of them aren't, I don't think. This is getting to the issues we have these days with trust, and whether we are prepared to believe the advice 'experts' give us.

If we can't trust anyone — and maybe we can't? — then where do we go from here? Don't we have to risk it, sometimes, and trust others? We exercise our judgement as best we can, but no one person can know everything that humans know. So sometimes, experts know what the rest of us don't.

Sometimes we should trust advisors; sometimes we *must* trust advisors?

I have often found fact-checkers to be deceptive. One trick is to fact check political opponents while never shining the same light on lies and misrepresentations by political allies.

I will trust advisors in areas not infected by politics but I have been mislead, lied to and manipulated enough by mainstream media to always consider the agenda of those making political or related points. Intersectionality has infected all of academia, and a good deal of the polity and big business. Any slight deviation from the politically correct line is deemed "misinformation".

[Lagayascienza]

It's not easy to get accurate information, especially when it comes to politics and the mainstream media. Perhaps the best we can do is to take nothing at face value. Question everything. Read broadly. And avoid getting comfortably trapped in online echo chambers where all you'll hear is what you already agree with.

I'd be interested to read suggestions about what else we might do to help us get a handle on what is true.

[Pattern-chaser]

I have often found fact-checkers to be deceptive. One trick is to fact check political opponents while never shining the same light on lies and misrepresentations by political allies.

I will trust advisors in areas not infected by politics but I have been mislead, lied to and manipulated enough by mainstream media to always consider the agenda of those making political or related points. Intersectionality has infected all of academia, and a good deal of the polity and big business. Any slight deviation from the politically correct line is deemed "misinformation".

Yes. The unscrupulous amongst us will use whatever means are available to get their own way. Describing something they don't like as "misinformation" is just one way.

And yet misinformation is real, it exists in our real world, and it would be nice if we could detect (and ignore) it. How far do we carry the cynical distrust you refer to, even though you make a strong argument for it?

[Sy Borg]

I have often found fact-checkers to be deceptive. One trick is to fact check political opponents while never shining the same light on lies and misrepresentations by political allies.

I will trust advisors in areas not infected by politics but I have been mislead, lied to and manipulated enough by mainstream media to always consider the agenda of those making political or related points. Intersectionality has infected all of academia, and a good deal of the polity and big business. Any slight deviation from the politically correct line is deemed "misinformation".

Yes. The unscrupulous amongst us will use whatever means are available to get their own way. Describing something they don't like as "misinformation" is just one way.

And yet misinformation is real, it exists in our real world, and it would be nice if we could detect (and ignore) it. How far do we carry the cynical distrust you refer to, even though you make a strong argument for it? 🤔

I don't think those in schools, universities or media need to be unscrupulous - all they need to do is uncritically believe prior misinformation, eg. the noble savage myth - that indigenous people lived peacefully amongst themselves until European colonists arrived.

Misinformation has always existed alongside information. Often so-called misinformation is old information that has since been disproved or disputed. If we accept this fact then people should be able to develop the skills needed to work out whether something makes sense to them, without needing an "expert" to either approve or deny of what is often the bleeding obvious.

I think our society is too oligarchic to fact-check information in a trustworthy way. I suspect that, just as fact-checking has become a societal ritual, fact-checking of fact-checkers will become more common. We saw it in the Trump v Harris debate, where Trump's misinformation was fact-checked but Harris's was not, eg. the false claim that Trump called Nazis at a protest "fine people" when the full quote shows that he specifically denounced the Nazis and was referring to the traditionalists wanting to keep their old statues.

That was widespread media misinformation perpetrated by selective use of quoting, removing context to change the ostensible meaning of a statement - a common and longstanding media technique. Harris repeated the misinformation about "fine people" so either the moderators failed to fact-check Harris due to ignorance, or they were biased towards Harris and giving her an easy run.

It's a real problem because even the scientific has been compromised by the corruption of values in today's society, where utility matters more than honesty. There is, simply, no truly reliable authority in any area remotely associated with politics.

I think that society's response will be dictatorial. Without trust, society will increasingly struggle to function. Some societies will take the Orwellian dictatorial route where the government will declare what is true and what is not. Disagreement will have consequences. We are already seeing something like this, where blocs are forming, especially in academia, where get people are fired or "cancelled" (generally stymied) for making statements that are disapproved by the blocs.

[Mo_reese]

I don't think those in schools, universities or media need to be unscrupulous - all they need to do is uncritically believe prior misinformation, eg. the noble savage myth - that indigenous people lived peacefully amongst themselves until European colonists arrived.

Misinformation has always existed alongside information. Often so-called misinformation is old information that has since been disproved or disputed. If we accept this fact then people should be able to develop the skills needed to work out whether something makes sense to them, without needing an "expert" to either approve or deny of what is often the bleeding obvious.

I think our society is too oligarchic to fact-check information in a trustworthy way. I suspect that, just as fact-checking has become a societal ritual, fact-checking of fact-checkers will become more common. We saw it in the Trump v Harris debate, where Trump's misinformation was fact-checked but Harris's was not, eg. the false claim that Trump called Nazis at a protest "fine people" when the full quote shows that he specifically denounced the Nazis and was referring to the traditionalists wanting to keep their old statues.

That was widespread media misinformation perpetrated by selective use of quoting, removing context to change the ostensible meaning of a statement - a common and longstanding media technique. Harris repeated the misinformation about "fine people" so either the moderators failed to fact-check Harris due to ignorance, or they were biased towards Harris and giving her an easy run.

It's a real problem because even the scientific has been compromised by the corruption of values in today's society, where utility matters more than honesty. There is, simply, no truly reliable authority in any area remotely associated with politics.

I think that society's response will be dictatorial. Without trust, society will increasingly struggle to function. Some societies will take the Orwellian dictatorial route where the government will declare what is true and what is not. Disagreement will have consequences. We are already seeing something like this, where blocs are forming, especially in academia, where get people are fired or "cancelled" (generally stymied) for making statements that are disapproved by the blocs.

I agree with your post. In politics misinformation is everywhere. When I address an issue to my Democratic House Rep. he answers with innuendo and rhetoric. Not technically lies but clearly misleading information. For example when I ask what is being done about the poor healthcare in the US he might tell me that more people are now covered by health insurance than ever before. This could be true due to the population increasing however the percentage of the total population may not be keeping up.
The US media favors the Democratic Party and is quick to fact-check the Republicans but not so the other way. IMO the misinformation of Fox News is easier to see thru than the clever misinformation from CNN and the NYT.
Compounding the problem of widespread misinformation is that many people of both parties want to believe the leadership of their party. They don't really seek the truth but confirmation of their biases.

[Lagayascienza]

Compounding the problem of widespread misinformation is that many people of both parties want to believe the leadership of their party. They don't really seek the truth but confirmation of their biases.

That's it in a nutshell - confirmation bias. And, as well as the fact that there's a lot of misinformation out there, a lot of people just aren't interested in doing the work to check and weed out misinformation. Instead of asking themselves whether Trump is correct in saying that immigrants are kidnapping and eating people's pets, they just accept it. And if Harris says that the DEMS have improved health care coverage, some people are similarly disinterested in checking whether it is true or not. And all too many people get comfortably ensconced in online echo chambers where all they hear is what they would like to believe.