Log In   or  Sign Up for Free

Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

Philosophy Discussion Forums
A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.

This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.


Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
By Mo_reese
#468639
Sy Borg wrote: October 5th, 2024, 1:37 pm

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.
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#468867
Mo_reese wrote: October 5th, 2024, 7:30 pm
Sy Borg wrote: October 5th, 2024, 1:37 pm

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.
User avatar
By LuckyR
#468870
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.
User avatar
By Lagayascienza
#468875
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".
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche Location: Antipodes
User avatar
By Pattern-chaser
#468883
LuckyR wrote: October 14th, 2024, 2:43 am 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.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#468895
LuckyR wrote: October 14th, 2024, 2:43 amAll 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?
User avatar
By Mo_reese
#468898
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 14th, 2024, 8:49 am
LuckyR wrote: October 14th, 2024, 2:43 am 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.
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#468900
Mo_reese wrote: October 14th, 2024, 8:44 pmFor 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.
User avatar
By Pattern-chaser
#468911
LuckyR wrote: October 14th, 2024, 2:43 am All you can do is Fact Check the misinformation.
Sy Borg wrote: October 14th, 2024, 5:28 pm 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?


Mo_reese wrote: October 14th, 2024, 8:44 pm 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?
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#468928
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 15th, 2024, 9:29 am
LuckyR wrote: October 14th, 2024, 2:43 am All you can do is Fact Check the misinformation.
Sy Borg wrote: October 14th, 2024, 5:28 pm 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".
User avatar
By Lagayascienza
#468930
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.
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche Location: Antipodes
User avatar
By Pattern-chaser
#468942
Sy Borg wrote: October 15th, 2024, 6:18 pm 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? 🤔
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#468947
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 16th, 2024, 7:55 am
Sy Borg wrote: October 15th, 2024, 6:18 pm 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.
User avatar
By Mo_reese
#468962
Sy Borg wrote: October 16th, 2024, 10:25 pm
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.
User avatar
By Lagayascienza
#468967
Mo_Rees wrote: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.
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche Location: Antipodes
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 12

Current Philosophy Book of the Month

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

2025 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

They Love You Until You Start Thinking For Yourself

They Love You Until You Start Thinking For Yourself
by Monica Omorodion Swaida
February 2025

2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age
by Elliott B. Martin, Jr.
October 2024

Zen and the Art of Writing

Zen and the Art of Writing
by Ray Hodgson
September 2024

How is God Involved in Evolution?

How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024

Neither Safe Nor Effective

Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024

Now or Never

Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024

Meditations

Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

The In-Between: Life in the Micro

The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024

2023 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021


As always, in moments such as these, humans are ha[…]

Oligarchies (like the US has had under the neo-lib[…]

There are things going on in all physical[…]

DEI and Doublespeak

I've never really understood why the investor g[…]