Picture yourself in an algebra class.The air is thick with the scent of wood lacquer and boredom, the clock ticks slowly towards freedom, and the teacher, who you quietly suspect isn't a real teacher, writes the following problem on the board.
I think that the problem with fact-checkers is that, in the past, accurate information and sincere questioning have been removed and written-off as the work of conspiracy theorists (https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/invasion-fact-checkers and https://commonplace.org/2025/01/17/good-riddance-facebook-fact-checkers/ are articles I've read recently detailing some issues - the second is explicitly a response to Facebook's policy change). Part of the advantage of community-sourced corrections is that, although they may take longer, people tend to receive them more openly since there's not as much of a "Ministry of Truth" vibe, plus there's less risk of partisanship since anyone can contribute.
On the second development, I certainly don't want to see more hate speech online, but I think that the First Amendment approach isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd like to see people discuss issues openly on the internet, and the cost of that is that some people will unfortunately say gross filth. At the end of the day, words are just words--how we respond to them is up to us. I think that part of the reason why people post inflammatory things online is for attention, so censoring them only confirms their perception of their own language as powerful and intimidating. That's just my two cents, though!
"I think that the problem with fact-checkers is that, in the past, accurate information and sincere questioning have been removed and written-off as the work of conspiracy theorists"
Yes, this is true. And it's a legitimate concern. But all we're really saying here is:
"The problem with fact checkers is that they aren't perfect."
Fact checkers, by and large, get things right. And while they can and should improve, no system of fact checking, very much including community notes, can be perfect. So I'm just saying the solution to that is to work harder to improve those systems and make them more transparent, not abandon the entire notion of truth and accuracy.
As for people who post inflammatory things, yes, I think you're right, they do it for attention. The problem is, they GET attention! So they're incentivised to post ever more inflammatory, dishonest things in the hopes of more attention. This inevitable trend is precisely why Twitter has become such a cesspool of misinformation and hate.
Again, we need to decide whether we want that to be the norm on our means of communication. Just as we've decided that we don't want child porn and beheadings on social media.
I'm actually not convinced by this line of argument. Most people are smart enough to hide their deepest darkest thoughts. In fact, online, many people are just saying what they think is most popular/profitable/likely to annoy the people on the other side.
I tend to think people more accurately tell you who they are with what they DO.
But anyway, a lot of people's memories are goldfish short. Knowing "who someone is" doesn't seem to take for more than a few months.
So we should infantilize adults? I would agree but you used the words, “who decides?” There are articles that you publish here that would get you thrown off of Medium where people can call conservatives, racist, sexist, fascist, pieces of shit and it’s just fine. When someone says, “a transwoman is a woman, PERIOD!”, disagree and it is hate speech that causes trans people to die. When hate is “I don’t like that, or you for saying it” it becomes a matter of which way the deciders tilt.
Yes, it is not a good thing when people believe fabulous bullshit, but anyone who thinks that only one side of the political spectrum is full of crap, they are unfit to be deciders. Algorithms seem weak at discerning obvious satire, or they don’t like it because satire and ridicule are effective and it’s making the wrong people look like idiots.
Yes! Some adults think and behave like infants! Again, we could both reel off example after example of this. Most people are too busy or lack the expertise to understand the avalanche of issues they face. And they need help, we ALL need help, differentiating facts from lies.
Just choosing our preferred narrative based on vibes or partisanship is not sustainable.
Yes, I'm painfully aware that there are places where I can't say certain things. I'm very annoyed about it. But that isn't even about fact checking. It's about a slavish, cult-like adherence to a particular orthodoxy. That's why I mentioned Galileo being threatened with torture for saying the Earth revolves around the Sun.
There is such a thing as a fact. And the one thing they all have in common is that they are supported by evidence. Galileo was right about the Earth revolving around the sun. And we know that because he could prove it. We should all want as many provable facts as possible in our discourse. Even if they are uncomfortable for some people.
Of course, some things, in fact, many things, don't fall into this category. We could have different experiences of racism, say, or sexism, or different personal political priorities. I support exactly zero restriction on the expression of these differences. But when people are deliberately distorting facts, like, for example, claiming that trans women are women or even female, proper fact-checking makes talking about these issues EAISER!
Facts are not inherently ideological. It is possible (and it would be beneficial) to take the flawed systems we have now and make them better and more transparent. That's all I'm saying.
I agree, but we live in a world where people select data that supports their views and call their opinion about it facts. Made worse because their “data” is a biased “study”. I would love unbiased honest fact checking, history doesn’t support that happening. Propaganda in the form of falsehood has been presented as truth forever.
"I agree, but we live in a world where people select data that supports their views and call their opinion about it facts"
Exactly! And this is a serious problem. Because it leaves us with a lot of people who are badly misinformed about the world they live in and therefore can't make rational, informed decision.
To be exceptionally clear, I'm not saying that rational informed decisions will always jibe with my own. It's perfectly possible to look at the same facts and come to different conclusions or have different priorities. This is the whole point of living in a pluralistic society.
My point is that we are looking at different "facts" and therefore coming to *irreconcilable* conclusions. And this is unsustainable. Just saying this is unfixable is pure defeatism.
Yes, and facebook and most of media didn't held Trump and conservatives to a standard of fact, that they never attempted to apply to the left.
For instance, when the presidential debates were fact checked, Trump was called out on many lies, and Biden and Harris (separate debates, yes) were called out on a token few, and a few more that were defended by the fact checkers as an understandable simplification. Image if they had vouched for Trump that way! Laughable idea. All three debaters lied almost constantly, even if Trump lied the most. This uneven treatment for different people within the same event was typically far more uneven for all other events.
"Literal nazi", anyone? Beyond the debates, frequent and bold claims by all kinds of celebrity and politicians that Trump is a literal nazi were never fact-checked. This happened many times, every single day. For some people, there never was fact checking, so nothing is lost now. There is no wonder why this version of fact-checking is rejected as an ideologically-captured hoax. "Literal nazi" to me means, "fact-check standards for thee, but not for me".
Here is a simple idea: Treat everyone to the same standard, and maybe someone will trust the process. No reason to trust? Then other details just don't matter.
Oh, definitely! As it pertains to online speech: if people are allowed to speak openly, even in objectionable ways, 1) their thoughts are in the open (so people will know what they believe and thus, as you point out, who exactly they are) and 2) others can confront them directly about prejudiced or incorrect statements.
"The internet comes with no discernment, you must supply your own"
A) Sadly, we could both quote dozens of examples of how bad people are at discerning information. B) It cannot be overstated how different the social media algorithms are to parables about the Buddha.
As I said, the value of free speech is the freedom to tell the truth. Or, at least, to be sincere. Social media, in many significant ways, incentivises the opposite.
I just wish there were more principle-based people that cared about the impact of misinformation broadly and not just for amplification of their own politics.
During the Biden years, Zuckerberg was hauled into Congress multiple times, and he was bullied daily to moderate content. Twitter was too. That moderation was ideologically-based for the left-leaning administration. Left-leaning journalism didn't find this to be much of a story/issue, and neither did the left-leaning base. If you thought moderation was okay then, consider yourself part of this problem we have today.
Fast forward to today. 'Zuck' is turning moderation on its head, moved moderation to Texas, and tells Joe Rogan he likes to hunt (LOL). Moderation is certainly changed.
The only thing that could have saved us from this moment is having enough people that have principal (and not political power) beliefs so that a rubber band doesn't need to send moderation hard in yet another corrective direction.
When right-leaning folks in power quickly get intoxicated by their moderation power, this will again cause general angst that the rubber band will again turn to left-leaning moderation. This was and is sadly predictable. Everybody should have cared about content moderation before Trump came back and before Elon took over Twitter. Please always be purists for fairness for all and not for fairness just for our own. Until we care about the unfair moderation of others, we can't expect nor deserve it for ourselves.
I don't believe any of them care about free speech; just try advocating for anarchism or criticizing the man at the top. The most generous interpretation I'd give is that they're buried in endless posting; the sheer volume of posts is overwhelming any attempt at Truth-from-above. I wonder; what effect did fact-checking have? Because all I've heard is complaints that it wasn't enough, had an agenda, was applied unevenly, etc.
While I dislike their cynical misappropriation of free speech, I don't support free speech because of any attachment to the virtues of debate or that truth will win out. I support free speech because there is no one I trust to tell me what I can and can't know. Do we "correct" everyone who says there are two genders? Or I'm certain the US Government would be happy to supply their own fact-checking service.
20 years of social media have convinced me that people simply don't CARE about truth, especially if they have a reason not to care. Bad info chases out good info. Confidently incorrect beats unconfidently correct. Human nature is flawed, and we've accidentally-on-purpose magnified some deep flaws. I don't know how to solve that. We seem to live in a post-truth, post-meaning reality...and people are realizing that.
"I support free speech because there is no one I trust to tell me what I can and can't know."
Ah, Hitchens. He was wrong here though. We trust people to at least decide what we can and can't know and see all the time. Every social network removes content (the aforementioned child porn and beheadings and God knows what else) without our knowledge or consent. We get along fine. The government clearly and openly denies us knowledge of all kinds of things about the world. Many of us object to this, but it's still the reality.
Of course, I want to know as much as possible. I'm not advocating for information to be hidden from us.
I'm advocating for clarity about the evidence base for that information, so I know if people are pulling claims out of thin air.
I'm advocating for the humility to recognise that we can't simply "do our own research" on everything from macroeconomics to climate change and we need better tools to explain the facts at a level laypeople can understand.
I'm advocating for transparency from social media companies and improvements to their methods instead of abandoning the concept of truth entirely because it's sometimes difficult.
Most people lack Hitchens' intelligence and memory and literacy. I'm sick of pretending this isn't the case. He was far more capable than most of taking in the raw data and coming up with clear, logical, factual interpretations. And I still wouldn't trust him to come to sensible conclusions about climate change or macroeconomics. I trust the average Joe's ability to do so far less.
"We both have truths - are mine the same as yours?"
This is the mistake that blights our discourse. No, in every case that concerns objective fact rather than subjective experience, we both have *opinions*.
If they conflict, one might be right or both of them might be wrong. But both of them are not and cannot be the truth.
I believe you a mixing up mathematics and scientific facts with truth. Mathematics defines 2 + x = 4. That definition includes the symbol 2, +, x, =, 4 as numbers operators and variables. That mathematics define that is a fact. Others may not subscribe to the mathematical definition. Not a wise choice but a choice.
Same with science. Gravity is defined by science as a mathematical equation. That science defines gravity as a mathematical equation is a fact. Religions believe God can overrule science. The Catholic Church famously tripped over this problem in their dispute with Galileo on whether the sun revolved around the earth. After centuries they are now more wise. They don’t dispute science and align their dogma with science.
Truth is more general. Religious people typically say that truth comes from God. Only God knows truth.
"I believe you a mixing up mathematics and scientific facts with truth."
Not exactly. Yes, 2 + 2 = 4 is both true and fact. It is a fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. It is a fact that George Washington was the first president of the United States. It's a fact that he owned slaves. It doesn't matter that some people don't "subscribe" to these facts. Those people are wrong. Or they're redefining terms so that we're not talking about the same thing anymore.
But was George Washington a good man? Well, that's not a matter of truth or fact. We can both have our opinions about it, we can present our reasoning for those opinions and all that's required is that the reasoning should also be based on facts, even if the conclusions are dumb.
You could say, for example "Washington owned slaves and all slaveowners were evil" or "he founded America and all Americans are good" and we can argue or agree to disagree and that's all fine.
But if you say he was good because he gave women the right to vote or evil because he gassed the Jews, you are wrong. And every conclusion you build on these incorrect facts is that much more likely to be wrong too.
Again, there is a difference between fact and opinion. And one of the biggest problems we face right now is that people are losing track of that very important difference. As for God being the arbiter of truth, I'll take that claim seriously once we establish God's existence or establish the veracity of a single one of the truths "he" has told us.
p.s. Science doesn't define gravity as a mathematical equation. It calculates gravity's effects using mathematical equations. This is a different thing.
Newton literally defined gravity as a mathematical equation.
Many would claim that all science is defined as mathematical concepts.
Science can disprove the existence of gods by coming up with a mathematical equation that predicts the future. That was the premise behind Asimov's Foundation Theory.
Truth ideally is the same as fact where a fact is proved by science but society doesn't always use truth that way.
Its arbitrary to use the term truth or true. It can mean multiple things.
a. The standard definition - something that is factual - i.e. scientifically proven
b. The judicial definition - something agreed to by judges or a jury
c. The religious definition - something only God defines.
d. The common definition - something someone believes by saying that's the truth.
That's the bottom line that Tim Rice stated so eloquently - "But what is truth, is truth unchanging law. We both have truths, are mine the same as yours".
Even in this discussion we are debating what is truth.
One more additional comment on your "historical" reference to truth by stating it's true that George Washington was the first president. Have you read 1984? Is Critical Race Theory true?
I get it, in an ideal world things like George Washington being the first president would never be challenged. But we don't live in that ideal world. We live in a world where truth is subjective to the beholder. Its wise to start with that "truth". ;)
I agree in principle. Unfortunately, common sense doesn't seem to apply. We should disallow anonymous postings on those sites, and every person should be responsible for their actions and held accountable for what they say. I'm just not sure how to achieve that. Then if someone wants to post swastikas, they can live with the consequences if any.
Hate speech is bad. I know that for sure. Do people who don't agree with abortion hate women? Is peacefully protesting in front of an abortion clinic a hate crime? I also know that if someone or some group has the authority to define hate, then anything will be defined as hate by some. Who gets to decide that?
But facts are chiels that winna ding,/An downa be disputed. - Robert Burns
"We should disallow anonymous postings on those sites, and every person should be responsible for their actions and held accountable for what they say."
I'm not entirely against this, but I think it would be even more unpopular than proper fact-checking. Plus, man of the worst liars on social media DO use their real names (I'm looking at you Elon).
Accountability for speech is hard at the best of times. It's incredibly rare that a single lie or comment leads to any real-world consequences. The problem I see is the cumulative radicalising effect of hundreds of thousands of dishonest posts, fed to you aggressively by and algorithm that excludes any counterpoints, until, oh, I don't know, ordinary people are incentivised to break into the capitol building and smear their sh*t on the walls.
There was no single piece of misinformation that could have done this. It's the cumulative lies that do the damage.
If you've read about the Twitter files and been ghost banned for nothing more than disagreeing with a large group of antisemites, you realize how flawed the system of favt checkers was.
I've been considering it for a while and this comment has finally convinced me to write an article about availability bias. Yes, the Twitter files were bad. But using this one example or the other common example of Hunter Biden's laptop, to condemn the vast machinery of information gathering that we rely on makes no sense.
It's like flying or shark attacks. Whenever a plane crashes or a shark attacks someone, people are more afraid to fly or go in the sea. The millions of people swimming in the sea incident free, the thousands of people flying safely every day, none of this enters into their calculations. Just the one scary outlier event that is suck in their heads.
Information is similar. We rely on various information sources every day and for the most part they do a great job. Yes, government interference is a reality and a problem. It was also the reality for previous administrations (including Trump's administration, though Musk conveniently chose not to highlight that). In fact, Musk is STILL complying with government takedown requests today. More than Dorsey did. But that doesn't mean we should abandon the whole concept of fact-checking.
To be clear, you're right, fact-checking, like any system, is flawed. Mistakes will be made. Just as, for example, I'm sure the systems that keep child porn and videos of beheadings away from our screens are flawed. I'm just arguing that the solution to these flaws is to make them better and more transparent, instead of doing away with them.
I think that the problem with fact-checkers is that, in the past, accurate information and sincere questioning have been removed and written-off as the work of conspiracy theorists (https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/invasion-fact-checkers and https://commonplace.org/2025/01/17/good-riddance-facebook-fact-checkers/ are articles I've read recently detailing some issues - the second is explicitly a response to Facebook's policy change). Part of the advantage of community-sourced corrections is that, although they may take longer, people tend to receive them more openly since there's not as much of a "Ministry of Truth" vibe, plus there's less risk of partisanship since anyone can contribute.
On the second development, I certainly don't want to see more hate speech online, but I think that the First Amendment approach isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd like to see people discuss issues openly on the internet, and the cost of that is that some people will unfortunately say gross filth. At the end of the day, words are just words--how we respond to them is up to us. I think that part of the reason why people post inflammatory things online is for attention, so censoring them only confirms their perception of their own language as powerful and intimidating. That's just my two cents, though!
"I think that the problem with fact-checkers is that, in the past, accurate information and sincere questioning have been removed and written-off as the work of conspiracy theorists"
Yes, this is true. And it's a legitimate concern. But all we're really saying here is:
"The problem with fact checkers is that they aren't perfect."
Fact checkers, by and large, get things right. And while they can and should improve, no system of fact checking, very much including community notes, can be perfect. So I'm just saying the solution to that is to work harder to improve those systems and make them more transparent, not abandon the entire notion of truth and accuracy.
As for people who post inflammatory things, yes, I think you're right, they do it for attention. The problem is, they GET attention! So they're incentivised to post ever more inflammatory, dishonest things in the hopes of more attention. This inevitable trend is precisely why Twitter has become such a cesspool of misinformation and hate.
Again, we need to decide whether we want that to be the norm on our means of communication. Just as we've decided that we don't want child porn and beheadings on social media.
I'm very much in the "no" camp for both.
People tell you who they are with what they say. That can be good to know.
I'm actually not convinced by this line of argument. Most people are smart enough to hide their deepest darkest thoughts. In fact, online, many people are just saying what they think is most popular/profitable/likely to annoy the people on the other side.
I tend to think people more accurately tell you who they are with what they DO.
But anyway, a lot of people's memories are goldfish short. Knowing "who someone is" doesn't seem to take for more than a few months.
So we should infantilize adults? I would agree but you used the words, “who decides?” There are articles that you publish here that would get you thrown off of Medium where people can call conservatives, racist, sexist, fascist, pieces of shit and it’s just fine. When someone says, “a transwoman is a woman, PERIOD!”, disagree and it is hate speech that causes trans people to die. When hate is “I don’t like that, or you for saying it” it becomes a matter of which way the deciders tilt.
Yes, it is not a good thing when people believe fabulous bullshit, but anyone who thinks that only one side of the political spectrum is full of crap, they are unfit to be deciders. Algorithms seem weak at discerning obvious satire, or they don’t like it because satire and ridicule are effective and it’s making the wrong people look like idiots.
"So we should infantilize adults?"
Yes! Some adults think and behave like infants! Again, we could both reel off example after example of this. Most people are too busy or lack the expertise to understand the avalanche of issues they face. And they need help, we ALL need help, differentiating facts from lies.
Just choosing our preferred narrative based on vibes or partisanship is not sustainable.
Yes, I'm painfully aware that there are places where I can't say certain things. I'm very annoyed about it. But that isn't even about fact checking. It's about a slavish, cult-like adherence to a particular orthodoxy. That's why I mentioned Galileo being threatened with torture for saying the Earth revolves around the Sun.
There is such a thing as a fact. And the one thing they all have in common is that they are supported by evidence. Galileo was right about the Earth revolving around the sun. And we know that because he could prove it. We should all want as many provable facts as possible in our discourse. Even if they are uncomfortable for some people.
Of course, some things, in fact, many things, don't fall into this category. We could have different experiences of racism, say, or sexism, or different personal political priorities. I support exactly zero restriction on the expression of these differences. But when people are deliberately distorting facts, like, for example, claiming that trans women are women or even female, proper fact-checking makes talking about these issues EAISER!
Facts are not inherently ideological. It is possible (and it would be beneficial) to take the flawed systems we have now and make them better and more transparent. That's all I'm saying.
I agree, but we live in a world where people select data that supports their views and call their opinion about it facts. Made worse because their “data” is a biased “study”. I would love unbiased honest fact checking, history doesn’t support that happening. Propaganda in the form of falsehood has been presented as truth forever.
"I agree, but we live in a world where people select data that supports their views and call their opinion about it facts"
Exactly! And this is a serious problem. Because it leaves us with a lot of people who are badly misinformed about the world they live in and therefore can't make rational, informed decision.
To be exceptionally clear, I'm not saying that rational informed decisions will always jibe with my own. It's perfectly possible to look at the same facts and come to different conclusions or have different priorities. This is the whole point of living in a pluralistic society.
My point is that we are looking at different "facts" and therefore coming to *irreconcilable* conclusions. And this is unsustainable. Just saying this is unfixable is pure defeatism.
Yes, and facebook and most of media didn't held Trump and conservatives to a standard of fact, that they never attempted to apply to the left.
For instance, when the presidential debates were fact checked, Trump was called out on many lies, and Biden and Harris (separate debates, yes) were called out on a token few, and a few more that were defended by the fact checkers as an understandable simplification. Image if they had vouched for Trump that way! Laughable idea. All three debaters lied almost constantly, even if Trump lied the most. This uneven treatment for different people within the same event was typically far more uneven for all other events.
"Literal nazi", anyone? Beyond the debates, frequent and bold claims by all kinds of celebrity and politicians that Trump is a literal nazi were never fact-checked. This happened many times, every single day. For some people, there never was fact checking, so nothing is lost now. There is no wonder why this version of fact-checking is rejected as an ideologically-captured hoax. "Literal nazi" to me means, "fact-check standards for thee, but not for me".
Here is a simple idea: Treat everyone to the same standard, and maybe someone will trust the process. No reason to trust? Then other details just don't matter.
Oh, definitely! As it pertains to online speech: if people are allowed to speak openly, even in objectionable ways, 1) their thoughts are in the open (so people will know what they believe and thus, as you point out, who exactly they are) and 2) others can confront them directly about prejudiced or incorrect statements.
The internet comes with no discernment, you must supply your own. This has always been true.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html
"The internet comes with no discernment, you must supply your own"
A) Sadly, we could both quote dozens of examples of how bad people are at discerning information. B) It cannot be overstated how different the social media algorithms are to parables about the Buddha.
As I said, the value of free speech is the freedom to tell the truth. Or, at least, to be sincere. Social media, in many significant ways, incentivises the opposite.
I just wish there were more principle-based people that cared about the impact of misinformation broadly and not just for amplification of their own politics.
During the Biden years, Zuckerberg was hauled into Congress multiple times, and he was bullied daily to moderate content. Twitter was too. That moderation was ideologically-based for the left-leaning administration. Left-leaning journalism didn't find this to be much of a story/issue, and neither did the left-leaning base. If you thought moderation was okay then, consider yourself part of this problem we have today.
Fast forward to today. 'Zuck' is turning moderation on its head, moved moderation to Texas, and tells Joe Rogan he likes to hunt (LOL). Moderation is certainly changed.
The only thing that could have saved us from this moment is having enough people that have principal (and not political power) beliefs so that a rubber band doesn't need to send moderation hard in yet another corrective direction.
When right-leaning folks in power quickly get intoxicated by their moderation power, this will again cause general angst that the rubber band will again turn to left-leaning moderation. This was and is sadly predictable. Everybody should have cared about content moderation before Trump came back and before Elon took over Twitter. Please always be purists for fairness for all and not for fairness just for our own. Until we care about the unfair moderation of others, we can't expect nor deserve it for ourselves.
I don't believe any of them care about free speech; just try advocating for anarchism or criticizing the man at the top. The most generous interpretation I'd give is that they're buried in endless posting; the sheer volume of posts is overwhelming any attempt at Truth-from-above. I wonder; what effect did fact-checking have? Because all I've heard is complaints that it wasn't enough, had an agenda, was applied unevenly, etc.
While I dislike their cynical misappropriation of free speech, I don't support free speech because of any attachment to the virtues of debate or that truth will win out. I support free speech because there is no one I trust to tell me what I can and can't know. Do we "correct" everyone who says there are two genders? Or I'm certain the US Government would be happy to supply their own fact-checking service.
20 years of social media have convinced me that people simply don't CARE about truth, especially if they have a reason not to care. Bad info chases out good info. Confidently incorrect beats unconfidently correct. Human nature is flawed, and we've accidentally-on-purpose magnified some deep flaws. I don't know how to solve that. We seem to live in a post-truth, post-meaning reality...and people are realizing that.
"I support free speech because there is no one I trust to tell me what I can and can't know."
Ah, Hitchens. He was wrong here though. We trust people to at least decide what we can and can't know and see all the time. Every social network removes content (the aforementioned child porn and beheadings and God knows what else) without our knowledge or consent. We get along fine. The government clearly and openly denies us knowledge of all kinds of things about the world. Many of us object to this, but it's still the reality.
Of course, I want to know as much as possible. I'm not advocating for information to be hidden from us.
I'm advocating for clarity about the evidence base for that information, so I know if people are pulling claims out of thin air.
I'm advocating for the humility to recognise that we can't simply "do our own research" on everything from macroeconomics to climate change and we need better tools to explain the facts at a level laypeople can understand.
I'm advocating for transparency from social media companies and improvements to their methods instead of abandoning the concept of truth entirely because it's sometimes difficult.
Most people lack Hitchens' intelligence and memory and literacy. I'm sick of pretending this isn't the case. He was far more capable than most of taking in the raw data and coming up with clear, logical, factual interpretations. And I still wouldn't trust him to come to sensible conclusions about climate change or macroeconomics. I trust the average Joe's ability to do so far less.
As the Tim Rice lyrics in Jesus Christ superstar go...
[PILATE]
Then you're a king? --
[JESUS]
-- It's you that say I am
I look for truth, and find that I get damned
[PILATE]
But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law?
We both have truths - are mine the same as yours?
The answer is simple. Let the people decide. Not some intellectual elite.
Those who decide wisely will be rewarded. Those who don't, will need to live with their decisions.
This applies to math as well as the Palestinians in Gaza.
"We both have truths - are mine the same as yours?"
This is the mistake that blights our discourse. No, in every case that concerns objective fact rather than subjective experience, we both have *opinions*.
If they conflict, one might be right or both of them might be wrong. But both of them are not and cannot be the truth.
I believe you a mixing up mathematics and scientific facts with truth. Mathematics defines 2 + x = 4. That definition includes the symbol 2, +, x, =, 4 as numbers operators and variables. That mathematics define that is a fact. Others may not subscribe to the mathematical definition. Not a wise choice but a choice.
Same with science. Gravity is defined by science as a mathematical equation. That science defines gravity as a mathematical equation is a fact. Religions believe God can overrule science. The Catholic Church famously tripped over this problem in their dispute with Galileo on whether the sun revolved around the earth. After centuries they are now more wise. They don’t dispute science and align their dogma with science.
Truth is more general. Religious people typically say that truth comes from God. Only God knows truth.
"I believe you a mixing up mathematics and scientific facts with truth."
Not exactly. Yes, 2 + 2 = 4 is both true and fact. It is a fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. It is a fact that George Washington was the first president of the United States. It's a fact that he owned slaves. It doesn't matter that some people don't "subscribe" to these facts. Those people are wrong. Or they're redefining terms so that we're not talking about the same thing anymore.
But was George Washington a good man? Well, that's not a matter of truth or fact. We can both have our opinions about it, we can present our reasoning for those opinions and all that's required is that the reasoning should also be based on facts, even if the conclusions are dumb.
You could say, for example "Washington owned slaves and all slaveowners were evil" or "he founded America and all Americans are good" and we can argue or agree to disagree and that's all fine.
But if you say he was good because he gave women the right to vote or evil because he gassed the Jews, you are wrong. And every conclusion you build on these incorrect facts is that much more likely to be wrong too.
Again, there is a difference between fact and opinion. And one of the biggest problems we face right now is that people are losing track of that very important difference. As for God being the arbiter of truth, I'll take that claim seriously once we establish God's existence or establish the veracity of a single one of the truths "he" has told us.
p.s. Science doesn't define gravity as a mathematical equation. It calculates gravity's effects using mathematical equations. This is a different thing.
Newton literally defined gravity as a mathematical equation.
Many would claim that all science is defined as mathematical concepts.
Science can disprove the existence of gods by coming up with a mathematical equation that predicts the future. That was the premise behind Asimov's Foundation Theory.
Truth ideally is the same as fact where a fact is proved by science but society doesn't always use truth that way.
Its arbitrary to use the term truth or true. It can mean multiple things.
a. The standard definition - something that is factual - i.e. scientifically proven
b. The judicial definition - something agreed to by judges or a jury
c. The religious definition - something only God defines.
d. The common definition - something someone believes by saying that's the truth.
That's the bottom line that Tim Rice stated so eloquently - "But what is truth, is truth unchanging law. We both have truths, are mine the same as yours".
Even in this discussion we are debating what is truth.
One more additional comment on your "historical" reference to truth by stating it's true that George Washington was the first president. Have you read 1984? Is Critical Race Theory true?
I get it, in an ideal world things like George Washington being the first president would never be challenged. But we don't live in that ideal world. We live in a world where truth is subjective to the beholder. Its wise to start with that "truth". ;)
I was thinking of that rock opera too.
I agree in principle. Unfortunately, common sense doesn't seem to apply. We should disallow anonymous postings on those sites, and every person should be responsible for their actions and held accountable for what they say. I'm just not sure how to achieve that. Then if someone wants to post swastikas, they can live with the consequences if any.
Hate speech is bad. I know that for sure. Do people who don't agree with abortion hate women? Is peacefully protesting in front of an abortion clinic a hate crime? I also know that if someone or some group has the authority to define hate, then anything will be defined as hate by some. Who gets to decide that?
But facts are chiels that winna ding,/An downa be disputed. - Robert Burns
Would that it were so.
"We should disallow anonymous postings on those sites, and every person should be responsible for their actions and held accountable for what they say."
I'm not entirely against this, but I think it would be even more unpopular than proper fact-checking. Plus, man of the worst liars on social media DO use their real names (I'm looking at you Elon).
Accountability for speech is hard at the best of times. It's incredibly rare that a single lie or comment leads to any real-world consequences. The problem I see is the cumulative radicalising effect of hundreds of thousands of dishonest posts, fed to you aggressively by and algorithm that excludes any counterpoints, until, oh, I don't know, ordinary people are incentivised to break into the capitol building and smear their sh*t on the walls.
There was no single piece of misinformation that could have done this. It's the cumulative lies that do the damage.
Sadly true. We live in a strange world.
If you've read about the Twitter files and been ghost banned for nothing more than disagreeing with a large group of antisemites, you realize how flawed the system of favt checkers was.
"If you've read about the Twitter files"
I've been considering it for a while and this comment has finally convinced me to write an article about availability bias. Yes, the Twitter files were bad. But using this one example or the other common example of Hunter Biden's laptop, to condemn the vast machinery of information gathering that we rely on makes no sense.
It's like flying or shark attacks. Whenever a plane crashes or a shark attacks someone, people are more afraid to fly or go in the sea. The millions of people swimming in the sea incident free, the thousands of people flying safely every day, none of this enters into their calculations. Just the one scary outlier event that is suck in their heads.
Information is similar. We rely on various information sources every day and for the most part they do a great job. Yes, government interference is a reality and a problem. It was also the reality for previous administrations (including Trump's administration, though Musk conveniently chose not to highlight that). In fact, Musk is STILL complying with government takedown requests today. More than Dorsey did. But that doesn't mean we should abandon the whole concept of fact-checking.
To be clear, you're right, fact-checking, like any system, is flawed. Mistakes will be made. Just as, for example, I'm sure the systems that keep child porn and videos of beheadings away from our screens are flawed. I'm just arguing that the solution to these flaws is to make them better and more transparent, instead of doing away with them.