Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[john61ct]

I think they are very conservative and as reliably objective as we have in the US. With evangelicals, billionaires and corporate hegemony very aggressively moving in on corrupting our academia for decades now, maybe not for long.

Just because some completely brainwashed sectors of our poorly educated population have been shifted way farther right than Eisenhower or even Nixon would ever have considered rational,

does not mean our trustworthy institutions are supposed to be somehow "centered" between the real world and those lunatic fringes.

The whole point is that truth is an objective reality, not a negotiated political compromise.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Given the central premise of the thread... don't you have some obligation to demonstrate or prove that these are irredeemably biased institutions or people?

Bias doesn't have to be "irredeemable" or otherwise willful to acknowledge its impacts. It's a natural part of the human condition, despite the efforts of the social sciences to objectify & quantify. Especially in these days of hyper-partisanship, it's important to be able to acknowledge & discount for it, whatever "side" happens to drive one's tribal instincts. In the article in question, I was immediately drawn to the authors' definition of "fake news" and how they came to produce their list of websites that they deemed as such. Can't tell you if they're really being objective or not, but "the central premise of the thread" would at least require reading it with a degree of circumspection given the institutions involved, its one-sided conclusions, and the times we're living through. In fact, I find it incongruous that an OP who raises such important issues as intellectual humility & knowing/admitting when you're wrong would even cite to an article which raises pretty obvious questions about it's partisan objectivity. But that's how bias works . . . one person may be unaware of features which another person deems hopelessly partisan.

In the case of Google, Facebook, and the potential misuse of algorithms, you yourself & others have made rather bold assumptions about their culpability & intentions which also seem to fly in the face of the thread topic. Not that your reasoning was illogical or invalid mind you, just rather dismissive in light of the well-publicized concerns that have been raised from many different quarters. Cyan's article noted that Google alone has 37,000 employees, and most apparently share a similar political orientation. Seems to me that, if nothing else, a high potential for abuse exists.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by john61ct

The whole point is that truth is an objective reality, not a negotiated political compromise.

That's your "objective reality" John, which by definition makes it subjective because it inherently contains your own life experiences, intellect, emotional make-up, bias, and a myriad of other factors which are unique to you (and maybe others who share your views). This is why there are few if any absolutes, and negotiated political compromises are not concessions but rather an essential feature of free & democratic societies (relatively speaking). The only people who "agree" (outwardly at least) on everything live in autocratic & repressive societies where the people in charge do not have the luxury of intellectual humility or the ability to admit when they're wrong.

[john61ct]

No, I'm sorry, but this bothsidesism is a huge part of the problem.

If someone is saying being Muslim or Jewish or brown makes you suspect as a citizen or as an immigrant, or that minorities shouldn't vote, or "all politicians are equally corrupt", etc

It's just not healthy to treat that as if it is an "opposing position" and split the difference somewhere in the middle being acceptable.

Those positions should not get an "equal value", should really be denied an amplifying platform other than word of mouth.

When any politician lies, the media should put big flashing subtitles real-time fact-checking with the more objective truth.

Allowing extreme positions to work their way into the mainstream is the most critical problem we need to devote our best resources to solving as quickly as possible.

Well, besides man's destruction of our ecosystems, and especially climate change.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by john61ct

I think they are very conservative and as reliably objective as we have in the US. With evangelicals, billionaires and corporate hegemony very aggressively moving in on corrupting our academia for decades now, maybe not for long.

Just because some completely brainwashed sectors of our poorly educated population have been shifted way farther right than Eisenhower or even Nixon would ever have considered rational,

does not mean our trustworthy institutions are supposed to be somehow "centered" between the real world and those lunatic fringes.

The whole point is that truth is an objective reality, not a negotiated political compromise.

Something I always look for, when weighing the objectivity of any particular writer, or the position that he is trying to promote, is for any hint that the writer actually seems to sincerely believe, that the only reason reasonable people could possibly not agree him or her, is due to the fact that they are simply not brilliant, or honest, enough to see the obvious truth that he sees.

You have that in spades, dude. Although I am pretty sure you don't see it that way.

But, you do make me laugh, so you have going for you. Although, I can't imagine being trapped on a boat on a long passage with you. It might be time to test out the life raft if that every happens. biggrin:

[GordMay]

What John said.

Fair & balanced does not mean equal. Fairness does not demand that every side of every question receive equal coverage.

[john61ct]

Underlying VALUES are a huge determiner of your sense of reality.

The happiness and harmony of the community as a whole is to me, the ultimate test of any policy question.

Many segments of the US population it seems, deny that we even **are** all one community, or perhaps deny the entire concept.

"I've got mine Jack, now you just F right off", is IMO the very definition of evil.

But apparently perfectly acceptable to many.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by john61ct

No, I'm sorry, but this bothsidesism is a huge part of the problem.

If someone is saying being Muslim or Jewish or brown makes you suspect as a citizen or as an immigrant, or that minorities shouldn't vote, or "all politicians are equally corrupt", etc

"Someone?" Who might that be? OK, maybe the slight about politicians.

It's just not healthy to treat that as if it is an "opposing position" and split the difference somewhere in the middle being acceptable.

Agreed. And most everyone would agree as well.

Those positions should not get an "equal value", should really be denied an amplifying platform other than word of mouth.

Actually, as ridiculous as your example is, I'd suggest it'd be better to have such ideas amplified -- that way everyone can see for themselves how ridiculous they are.

When any politician lies, the media should put big flashing subtitles real-time fact-checking with the more objective truth.

"More objective truth?" Huh, interesting concept. But "fact-checking" seems all the rage these days -- from both sides. So good idea but it's already being done.

Allowing extreme positions to work their way into the mainstream is the most critical problem we need to devote our best resources to solving as quickly as possible.

In other words . . . censorship. Whatever happened to the age-old idea of transparency being the best disinfectant? I know, I know, just soooo yesterday . . . .

Well, besides man's destruction of our ecosystems, and especially climate change.

More of your "objective truth" no doubt.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Underlying VALUES are a huge determiner of your sense of reality.

The happiness and harmony of the community as a whole is to me, the ultimate test of any policy question.

Many segments of the US population it seems, deny that we even **are** all one community, or perhaps deny the entire concept.

"I've got mine Jack, now you just F right off", is IMO the very definition of evil.

But apparently perfectly acceptable to many.

Which segments of the US population are you referring to? How do you define the selfishness & greed you complain about? Can you put some objectivity, i.e. statistics maybe, into your frequent diatribes? Rates of charitable contributions, volunteerism, pro bono work? IOW, anything closer to your yearning for "objective truth" other than what thus far sounds like mere personal angst?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

What John said.

Fair & balanced does not mean equal. Fairness does not demand that every side of every question receive equal coverage.

Who said that it should? But there's quite a chasm between this and "what John said."

[boatman61]

'Trustworthy' publishers of school Atlas's in the Colonies showed the UK as large as France on the Europe pages.. couldn't have the natives knowing how small the ruling country really was..

[Exile]

Originally Posted by boatman61

'Trustworthy' publishers of school Atlas's in the Colonies showed the UK as large as France on the Europe pages.. couldn't have the natives knowing how small the ruling country really was..

Bet that pissed off the natives that much more when they ultimately learned the truth!

The best remedy for untruths, half-truths, and partial truths has always been more information not less. I'm sure we can all find obvious examples of where this does not hold true, but applied reasonably and in societies which value & protect free speech and a free press, trying to suppress rather than expose has always been rife with negative repercussions.

It may be helpful for some of you to read the US Supreme Court's decision in Skokie v. Illinois where the Court held that the 1st Amendment allowed a group of neo-Nazis to parade through a city with a large population of Holocaust survivors. Obviously nobody with any sense of decency liked the decision, the least of which the members of the Court, but they also recognized that living in a free society required it. I'd add that living with such freedoms also requires a thicker skin when it comes to disagreeable opinions than what we've been seeing these days.

[john61ct]

Find Dorrie O'Brien and Sara Legvold's statements in their fight to unseat Shahid Shafi from his position as vice chairman of the Tarrant County Republican party.

Truth and reality won this round, but how have we sunk so low as a nation that such ideas are even being propagated?

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by GordMay

What John said.

Fair & balanced does not mean equal. Fairness does not demand that every side of every question receive equal coverage.

Well said. Fairness is not an inalienable right granted by our creator. Nature abhors fairness and equality of outcomes. These are human concepts foreign to the rest of creation.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by boatman61

'Trustworthy' publishers of school Atlas's in the Colonies showed the UK as large as France on the Europe pages.. couldn't have the natives knowing how small the ruling country really was..

In all fairness to cartographers, traditional Mercator projection maps drastically distort the sizes of land masses that are closer to the poles. The UK (more distorted, closer to a pole) would indeed appear about the size of France (less distorted, closer to equator) on a Mercator projection. Similarly, Russia, Canada, Alaska, and Greenland are just not that big after all, and Australia is relatively much larger than it appears on an ordinary Mercator Atlas. Is there a Colony's School Atlas that shows this even more exaggerated than Mercator?
https://www.boredpanda.com/true-size...mpaign=organic