Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

...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. ...

This gets me back to my thoughts a few pages ago regarding what I see an increase in what I call intentional ignorance in our societies. These days knowledge, data and information is more accessible to more people than ever before. The Internet was supposed to usher in a new golden age of enlightenment as access to information became more available.

The opposite seems to be happening … at least in many areas.

A current case in point; the new radio telescope just down the road from me here in BC recently published some exciting observations regarding fast radio bursts. It’s cool astronomy, but nothing very interesting or relevant for most people.

BUT, the international mass media has gone all gaga over the research. The news hook appears to be it might be radio signals from ‘little green men.’ But no scientist involved in the research has even hinted this could be the case. In fact, they’ve gone out of their way to correct this misinterpretation.

But for the intentionally ignorant, it’s “radio” so it must be signals from intelligent extraterrestrial aliens .

This demonstrates a lot of things about the media, but one of them is a level of ignorance that 30 seconds on the Internet would easily cure. Yet these programs would rather broadcast irrational speculation, rather than reality.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

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.

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

Besides that... just because a lion will eat a goat doesn't make it inevitable or OK that people prey on each other. Because we have the ability to think and plan and reflect, we have the one thing that the rest of nature does not: responsibility.


Some may deny or shirk it, but it's there just the same.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by 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?

As compared to how other nations treat their minority Muslim populations?

You only mentioned in passing the more important story here, namely that the vote was 139-49 to reject the efforts to oust him. Bias, prejudice, discrimination and fear seem to be embedded in humankind, but as Dr. Shafi put it:

"After the vote, Shafi said the campaign to oust him had been hard on him and his family, but that he felt no animosity toward his critics, the Star-Telegram reports.

As an immigrant to this great country, I am honored and privileged to receive the support of my fellow Republicans," he told reporters. "We need to learn to trust each other so we can create a more perfect union everyday."

Other prominent TX Repubs followed suit:

Sen. Ted Cruz -- “Discrimination against Dr. Shafi b/c he’s Muslim is wrong… The Party of Lincoln should welcome everybody and celebrate liberty”

Gov. Greg Abbott -- called the vote “contrary to the principle of religious freedom”

Texas land commissioner George P. Bush -- “What matters is a person’s character, judgment and values. Shahid Shafi has all three.”

We cannot always prevent the darker sides of human nature from surfacing, but this case shows that defeating them openly & transparently is much more preferable than forcing such views underground.

[boatman61]

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

But.. some are more Equal than others..

[cyan]

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.

This is a very interesting perspective, as in the US both left and right leaning publications seem to agree agree that liberal educators vastly outnumber conservative ones, at more than a 10 to 1 ratio in academia. Yet, the country is about a 50/50 split in most polls that I've seen.

One could easily argue that "for decades" these institutions have been drastically skewed to the left, perhaps still trending even farther that way as time passes. It would be intellectually lazy to claim that less educated folks are brainwashed and shifted to the right as a whole, methinks.

You might consider that YOUR perspective of "the real world" is the actual "shifted" part of this situation. (hence the thread title) OR- it could be MY perspective that is shifted. Then again, I don't have a dog in this fight, as I'm a lefty here and a righty there, always willing to hear a persuasive case. However, this is not that.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Quote:
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

Besides that... just because a lion will eat a goat doesn't make it inevitable or OK that people prey on each other. Because we have the ability to think and plan and reflect, we have the one thing that the rest of nature does not: responsibility.


Some may deny or shirk it, but it's there just the same.

You got your bolding wrong. Being created equal (yea, yea, as defined back in the day) is not the same as guaranteeing equality of outcomes.

As for democracy, it has been described as two wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner. No system is perfect, but mainly because it's made up of imperfect human beings.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

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.

You could have saved yourself alot of typing by just saying "X is biased because I think it is". Even so, it's much more efficient than actually arguing how and why it's biased. Unpleasant facts aren't necessarily bias. But declaring "bias" without qualification is an excuse to discount them, as you state.

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.

Seriously? My "Bold assumptions"? Others have suggested that Google may be hatching some nefarious political manipulation, or inevitably going to abuse their power; I provided a counter-argument or two... but I'm the bold assumer? Ok then. Getting the T-shirt ordered.

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.

I have concerns too, but there's a difference between concerns and "they must be doing wrong because they're successful and everyone uses them".


And what - any company with more than 36,999 employes has a high potential for commiting political abuse? And an unproven assertion about the political orientation and activity of the workforce? Isn't generalizing fun?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by boatman61

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

But.. some are more Equal than others..

Only at birth. No guarantees on what happens after that.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Being created equal (yea, yea, as defined back in the day) is not the same as guaranteeing equality of outcomes.

As for democracy, it has been described as two wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner. No system is perfect, but mainly because it's made up of imperfect human beings.

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".

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You could have saved yourself alot of typing by just saying "X is biased because I think it is". Even so, it's much more efficient than actually arguing how and why it's biased. Unpleasant facts aren't necessarily bias. But declaring "bias" without qualification is an excuse to discount them, as you state.

Couldn't agree more, which is exactly why I never said Google was biased "because I think it is." You made some logical points that potentially support why it is not and I did the same for why it may be. Did I miss some sort of definitive ruling on this in the news, or are we just going to have to "steel" ourselves for ongoing controversy? If only we could all hold hands & agree on . . . everything.

Seriously? My "Bold assumptions"? Others have suggested that Google may be hatching some nefarious political manipulation, or inevitably going to abuse their power; I provided a counter-argument or two... but I'm the bold assumer? Ok then. Getting the T-shirt ordered.

OK then!

I have concerns too, but there's a difference between concerns and "they must be doing wrong because they're successful and everyone uses them".

Don't recall anyone saying this one either, let alone me. Are we referencing the same thread?

And what - any company with more than 36,999 employes has a high potential for commiting political abuse? And an unproven assertion about the political orientation and activity of the workforce? Isn't generalizing fun?

No, rather boring actually, especially when a poster has to consistently re-write another poster's comments in order to make silly points. [yawn]

[Exile]

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".

Who was doing that? Did I miss a post or two??

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This gets me back to my thoughts a few pages ago regarding what I see an increase in what I call intentional ignorance in our societies. These days knowledge, data and information is more accessible to more people than ever before. The Internet was supposed to usher in a new golden age of enlightenment as access to information became more available.

The opposite seems to be happening … at least in many areas.

A current case in point; the new radio telescope just down the road from me here in BC recently published some exciting observations regarding fast radio bursts. It’s cool astronomy, but nothing very interesting or relevant for most people.

BUT, the international mass media has gone all gaga over the research. The news hook appears to be it might be radio signals from ‘little green men.’ But no scientist involved in the research has even hinted this could be the case. In fact, they’ve gone out of their way to correct this misinterpretation.

But for the intentionally ignorant, it’s “radio” so it must be signals from intelligent extraterrestrial aliens .

This demonstrates a lot of things about the media, but one of them is a level of ignorance that 30 seconds on the Internet would easily cure. Yet these programs would rather broadcast irrational speculation, rather than reality.

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.

Expanding on your initial comments, the other problem may be what is probably a grossly disproportionate number of readers who don't actually go beyond the first page of a Google search result. Not only may it not get them to the real story, but I fear it could be contributing to the conformity in beliefs that seems all too prevalent nowadays. As Third Day pointed out in the realm of WM's & marine refrigeration, everyone's just one click away from convincing themselves they're an "expert" on almost any topic. But learning tidbits about any particular topic is not necessarily a substitute for knowledge, and this new "golden age" may be more effective at convincing ever growing numbers of people what to think as opposed to how to think.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Did I miss a post or two??

Apparently. And it seems we talked past each other - eg here you reply to something I said about TxD's inference of bias against that UNY paper... then

here you suddenly refer to Google? Nor did I say that you said "they must be doing wrong because they're successful and everyone uses them". ... this was the general tenor of several comments made by others about Google.

And the "All Men are..." tangent was in response to TxD's points re nature...

So ... at least one of us isn't putting in the effort. I confess this thread doesn't hold my zeal like some others, so... meh. Let's move forward.


... such as your point to Mike that the media is just doing news for eyeballs. This problem, and lack of public confidence, is most prevalent in the US, which lacks an arms-length funded public broadcaster. Discuss.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Apparently. And it seems we talked past each other - eg here you reply to something I said about TxD's inference of bias against that UNY paper... then

here you suddenly refer to Google? Nor did I say that you said "they must be doing wrong because they're successful and everyone uses them". ... this was the general tenor of several comments made by others about Google.

And the "All Men are..." tangent was in response to TxD's points re nature...

So ... at least one of us isn't putting in the effort. I confess this thread doesn't hold my zeal like some others, so... meh. Let's move forward.


... such as your point to Mike that the media is just doing news for eyeballs. This problem, and lack of public confidence, is most prevalent in the US, which lacks an arms-length funded public broadcaster. Discuss.

You're free to do as you wish, but it'd be more interesting to try & discuss the topics being presented rather than the endless he-said-she-said back & forth. And yes, I do believe there is a productive way to discuss the state of modern-day politics without getting mindlessly partisan. I mean, who really believes a forum thread is going to change minds in that arena? Another big [yawn] at this point.

By "arms-length funded public broadcaster" in the US do you mean NPR? Most conservatives seem to feel they are overtly biased, but liberals generally believe they are a beacon of objectivity. Big surprise, huh? (Yes, I'm generalizing and could be wrong).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

By "arms-length funded public broadcaster" in the US do you mean NPR? Most conservatives seem to feel they are overtly biased, but liberals generally believe they are a beacon of objectivity. Big surprise, huh? (Yes, I'm generalizing and could be wrong).

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.