Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

Actually Mike, most of the media would rather broadcast "news" which boosts ratings & sells more newspapers. As you point out, which story about the "radio signals" is more "newsworthy" ($$$) to the largest number of people? I'm not trying to make a hit on the media necessarily, but only to point out that this is just another example of bias, in this case the age old profit-driven one. Unlike some, I don't think the remedy is necessarily to trash certain media outlets or label them, but to recognize their bias and discount it accordingly. ...

I wasn’t actually bashing the media, although there is plenty to critisize (and I say that as a former reporter and 30+ worker in various media). I was just pointing out the level of intentional ignorance which seems to pervade life now.

I say intentional b/c it is so easy to know certain things now. A reporter who knew zero about radio astronomy could spend 30 seconds reading the first paragraph on the Wiki page about the subject and learn enough to know it is just goofy to think this phenomena is a signal from “little green men.”

In years gone by the same reporter might have had to go to a library to get the same information — still possible, but vastly easier today. YET, my biased perspective is that the veil of ignorance is deeper today than in the recent past.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Heck no. NPR and PBS, as hard as they try, are always just one bake sale or pledge drive away from fading away.


No, I'm referring to BBC, Deutsche Welle, NHK, ABC (Australia), CBC, SVT, etc etc. These set the journalistic bar higher, and they influence commercial competitors to do likewise.


Thing is, you can say everyone's biased and the secret is just to know this, but there are such things as being accurate, factual, independent and having integrity, and some have it more than others. If you watch the news and the first thing you consider is "well, just remember they always tilt this way"... then you don't have trustworthy media.

They don't always tilt this way on every story -- that's just simple-minded labeling. But when it comes to opinion pieces or those involving hot-button issues, it's important to be aware of a general bias in one direction or another. I'm not suggesting a baby-out-with-the-bathwater approach here. But it's equally naive to simply take everything at face value because they may be publicly funded, or have a good rep, or whatever. We have an obligation as citizens to receive information with a critical eye, and one of the most important things to consider is the motivation of the source.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I wasn’t actually bashing the media, although there is plenty to critisize (and I say that as a former reporter and 30+ worker in various media). I was just pointing out the level of intentional ignorance which seems to pervade life now.

I say intentional b/c it is so easy to know certain things now. A reporter who knew zero about radio astronomy could spend 30 seconds reading the first paragraph on the Wiki page about the subject and learn enough to know it is just goofy to think this phenomena is a signal from “little green men.”

In years gone by the same reporter might have had to go to a library to get the same information — still possible, but vastly easier today. YET, my biased perspective is that the veil of ignorance is deeper today than in the recent past.

No, I didn't think you were bashing the media with your comments. The question is whether the sort of bogus reporting you cite is intentional as you suggest because of laziness (i.e. a stupid mistake), or intentional in the sense that they actually know better but want to boost their circulation or ratings. Then there's the problem of other media outlets reporting on what the initial reports said and the misinformation is compounded. News outlets becoming newsmakers if you will.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

No, I didn't think you were bashing the media with your comments. The question is whether the sort of bogus reporting you cite is intentional as you suggest because of laziness (i.e. a stupid mistake), or intentional in the sense that they actually know better but want to boost their circulation or ratings. Then there's the problem of other media outlets reporting on what the initial reports said and the misinformation is compounded. News outlets becoming newsmakers if you will.

I probably shouldn’t use intentional. My intent is to bring focus to my perception that ignorance in a wide range of areas appears to be increasing, not decreasing. And this seems to fly in the face of how easy it is to access quality information these days.

It seems to me it now takes effort to remain ignorant on certain topics; something we can see in action on a wide range of subjects from GMOs and vaccinations, to climate change and even evolution. Not to get political on this, but the rise of “alternative facts” seems to be a growing phenomena (which certainly predates any current political activity).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I probably shouldn’t use intentional. My intent is to bring focus to my perception that ignorance in a wide range of areas appears to be increasing, not decreasing. And this seems to fly in the face of how easy it is to access quality information these days.

It seems to me it now takes effort to remain ignorant on certain topics; something we can see in action on a wide range of subjects from GMOs and vaccinations, to climate change and even evolution. Not to get political on this, but the rise of “alternative facts” seems to be a growing phenomena (which certainly predates any current political activity).

Maybe so. But not everyone has beliefs driven purely by science; sometimes the science is controverted; religious beliefs play a role (maybe more so in the U.S.); politics seemingly infuses everything these days; for many if not most, sources of information remain largely superficial, i.e. the nightly news & the first page of a Google search; people don't care; people no longer trust mainstream institutions; etc., etc. I hear what you're saying and it is ironic, but I guess having much greater access to information doesn't mean people are availing themselves of it, and there are other factors which may be worsening the problem.

Then again, what may be "factual" is often in the eye of the beholder. I guess we'd need concrete examples to flush it out. But how about we NOT use CC!

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It is possible (but not simple) to buy legit "rooted" Android phones that you can install as little or as much as you want on them.

er.... The OS is Google. You are still in the clutches.

All this fuss over Huawei ... Google and Microsoft lead the way in extracting information...

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe so. But not everyone has beliefs driven purely by science; sometimes the science is controverted; religious beliefs play a role (maybe more so in the U.S.); politics seemingly infuses everything these days; for many if not most, sources of information remain largely superficial, i.e. the nightly news & the first page of a Google search; people don't care; people no longer trust mainstream institutions; etc., etc. I hear what you're saying and it is ironic, but I guess having much greater access to information doesn't mean people are availing themselves of it, and there are other factors which may be worsening the problem.

Then again, what may be "factual" is often in the eye of the beholder. I guess we'd need concrete examples to flush it out. But how about we NOT use CC!

No… no CC discussion. Please. I’m enjoying this thread too much.

I know you know this, but science is not a thing. It’s a logical process of understand the world around us. To say not all beliefs are driven by science begs the question: what are they driven by?

I think you’re right about the declining levels of trust in institutions. Perhaps it’s really a declining level of trust in society overall. Those who rate these things identify the USA as having a very low level of trust these days — it wasn’t always like this.

Fear and loathing seems to be on the ascendancy as a prime driving force in so much of what we think and do these days. People acting out of fear tend not to be very logical, or trusting.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by weavis

er.... The OS is Google. You are still in the clutches.

Android itself doesn't phone home with your personal info; it's the installed apps that do that. If you can start on a rooted phone with a clean Android install, then you can just load the apps you want. That's mainly what people want when they root - to avoid the mandatory app load that usually comes with a phone from the telcos.


Browsers and cookies and web advertising - still the same problems, but you have a greater choice of browsers, some with better cookie control.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I wasn't making the equality of outcome argument, just noting that we can't defend our bad choices or actions by shrugging and saying "nature".

And yet that is exactly what many progressives propose we should do. We should respect nature and impact it little or none at all. You can’t have it both ways. Humans can’t operate under an unnatural set of norms without impacting nature. It’s so blindingly obvious but many can not see.

Nature cares not a whit for fairness, equality, unearned respect and a host of other attributes that we all value. From where do these values come? I know the answer but I am sure many here do not or won’t agree. Hint, they don’t come from humanity studies or philosophy or gender studies curricula.

[weavis]

Even devices that had been reset to factory default settings, with location services disabled, were observed by Quartz sending nearby cell-tower addresses to Google. Devices with a cellular data or WiFi connection appear to send the data to Google each time they come within range of a new cell tower. When Android devices are connected to a WiFi network, they will send the tower addresses to Google even if they don’t have SIM cards installed.
The practical effect of this is that, so long as your Android phone is on and not inside a Faraday cage, your location data is being communicated. Google told Quartz that this practice has existed for 11 months, but that the information was never stored or used and furthermore that the process will now be ended.

ended eh?

[weavis]

But then... I might be wrong.

[heron237]

That must come from the old saw: What's the hardest thing for a guy to say......I don't know. Sounds apocryphal to me.

[transmitterdan]

But the real privacy clowns are the US mobile operators. AT&T has been caught out selling real time location data for pretty much every subscriber to pretty much anybody. They have just announced they will terminate these sales "real soon now" after an exposé by online media (Motherboard I think). So it's not just google/Facebook/Huawei we need to suspect.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

No… no CC discussion. Please. I’m enjoying this thread too much.

I know you know this, but science is not a thing. It’s a logical process of understand the world around us. To say not all beliefs are driven by science begs the question: what are they driven by?

I think you’re right about the declining levels of trust in institutions. Perhaps it’s really a declining level of trust in society overall. Those who rate these things identify the USA as having a very low level of trust these days — it wasn’t always like this.

Fear and loathing seems to be on the ascendancy as a prime driving force in so much of what we think and do these days. People acting out of fear tend not to be very logical, or trusting.

Understanding what science is and how it works doesn't help persuade when people believe (justified or not) that science has been politicized for the sake of other agendas. Or in the case of that topic we need not any longer discuss . . . that even if they believe in the science the overall problem is too overwhelming & complex for them or humanity at large to have any meaningful impact. So it's not just a question of people not believing in science, but maybe also about not trusting the motives of the people communicating what the science means.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

And yet that is exactly what many progressives propose we should do. We should respect nature and impact it little or none at all. You can’t have it both ways. Humans can’t operate under an unnatural set of norms without impacting nature. It’s so blindingly obvious but many can not see.

Nature cares not a whit for fairness, equality, unearned respect and a host of other attributes that we all value. From where do these values come? I know the answer but I am sure many here do not or won’t agree. Hint, they don’t come from humanity studies or philosophy or gender studies curricula.

I don't know where you're pulling all that from.

It is friday night, I guess we're all getting a bit 'relaxed' eh?