How to defend and spread the truth in this age of misinformation and gullibility

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 57
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
Truth be told, when supposedly educated people trust crystals more than vaccines, they are no different from uneducated peasants in the third world. They may be experts at reading, writing and believing nonsense; that doesn't make them educated by todays standards and they certainly cannot be called knowledgeable. The question we should be asking is whether or not it is even worth it to try and help them out, or even possible. To what extent can adults be educated?


There are many obvious obstacles truth must overcome in contemporary America:
  1.  Religion and other forms of unfounded beliefs are firmly established in indoctrinated minds. Many people have become immune to truth. By definition, echo chambers prevent misinformation from being corrected - especially when faith or "anecdotal evidence" is trusted above real evidence that is verifiable.
  2. Lack of education is a hard nut to crack because many unconciously avoid finding, learning and remembering correct information. Sometimes it is not mallicious intent or indoctrination that causes the spread of misinformation, but rather intelectual laziness and lack of skepticism. When people have enough of an open mind, their brain falls out. People sorely need to recognize untrustworthy sources and fake facts, but they cannot do so without putting in some effort. 
  3. Big lies feeds on widespread ignorance and distrust of authority (whatever all the experts agree on). Any attempt at helping people will be portrayed as an oppressive establishment stricking down dissent. For this reason, trying to cure ignorance can sometimes backfire. 
  4. The greatest problem is that lack of education is not the real problem. The average IQ and knowledge is way higher today than most of history. But the way modern media works, people are educated in different directions. Factually accurate education is hard to come by, it is drowned in a sea of dishonest alternatives. The layman learns from his sources, trusting them regardless of their trustworthiness. Most such sources are driven by political, religious or ideological agendas to cherry pick information and perspectives. Even if they don't outright lie they hide the truth when it conflicts with their narrative. They shoot a constant barrage of fallacious arguments at the gullible person with devastating success, no matter the absurdity of their position.
  5. A person is likely to host a growing colony of misconceptions because there are a quadrillion ways to view the world, most of which are objectively incorrect. Human cognition also suffer from biases and logical fallacies obscuring our ability to decipher the validity of arguments and claims.

Finding the truth is not a piece of cake, quite the contrary.  Science only finds the truth by studying all available evidence and exposing any hypothesis to intense scrutiny. Any charletan can claim that science is wrong -- but it takes the cumulative effort of scientists worldwide to find real flaws in their models. And when they do, they rejoyce because it means progress. If a person does not trust established science it means they do not  understand how science is established. The most crucial element of rehabilitating a fool is to teach them how evidence works, how logic works, how to be skeptical and detect illogical propaganda.


They need to know WHY science is trustworthy -- only then can one learn to trust it. Trust is a good thing when you deserve it, and science definately deserves trust.



I am curious to hear what you have to add to this conversation. What other aspects are there to the problem? Am I over-exagerating it? What are possible solutions?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Actually the average intelligence (not just IQ alone) is probably lower, not higher because we've become more empathetic and protective of the less intelligent and less capable.

It's a major misconception that the average human is smarter today than before, driven by the idea that our intelligence is what we know as opposed to our innate ability to use said information.
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Taking care of everyone does not in any way affect the average IQ scores because evolution has not had time to kick in just the last 3 generations. Intelligence increase can be attributed to medicinal and nutritional advancements. I agree with you that knowledge and intelligence are different. In fact that is the whole point. Many people are stupid not because they lack in IQ but because they lack or disagree with common proven knowledge. Do you have any idea of how to educate such people?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@RationalMadman

Yes, traditionally, vocabulary was used as a metric for intelligence. Research has shown that it’s highly correlated with IQ. Yet, according to a 2006 study, American’s vocabulary has been in swift decline since its peak, in the 1940’s.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
Taking care of everyone does not in any way affect the average IQ scores because evolution has not had time to kick in just the last 3 generations. Intelligence increase can be attributed to medicinal and nutritional advancements. I agree with you that knowledge and intelligence are different. In fact that is the whole point. Many people are stupid not because they lack in IQ but because they lack or disagree with common proven knowledge. Do you have any idea of how to educate such people?
Perhaps, with IQ specifically, you could be right. However, society has gotten much more merciful on those that struggle, meaning that there's less in childhood let alone adulthood forcing less intelligent people to push themselves to become more witty and sharp. In the past they'd possibly literally die off or would potentially end up very low on the 'food chain' as very little provided for them or their style of learning.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
Many people are stupid not because they lack in IQ but because they lack or disagree with common proven knowledge. Do you have any idea of how to educate such people?
I have never come across anybody like this but I do know others wrongly associate that with 'stupidity'. The way to educate the uneducated is to work out why they don't know it (as in have they been told it and forgotten or did they just never get taught it) and then to refine the teaching style to the individual if they learned and forgot, which has no simple answer.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Benjamin
Well said, Benjamin, and I agree with your concerns.  This is not entirely a bad problem to have.  Before the internet, we depended on responsible gatekeepers and a general, liberal, consensus to establish historic and scientific fact.  While incredibly useful, the big truth was also difficult to challenge or correct.  Now the truth is practically customizable to taste and what's real is far less easy to verify.  I would like to a see an international, science-backed project on the scale and order of the IPCC working to present a single, vigorously curated and comprehensively verified source of factual information readily and feely available online.  Something like a Wikipedia but sticking strictly to thoroughly verified, peer-reviewed and consensus factual information.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@oromagi
That is more, not less, open to groupthink shaming things outside the norm ideas into silence.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@RationalMadman
all scientific knowledge is groupthink by definition.  shame is in the hands of the ashamed.

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@oromagi
Idk if you felt that was witty or something but I didn't find it to be so.
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagi
Groupthink is bad, but expert consensus is not. What is proposed is creating a universally accepted source of reliable information, not to censor inner discussion in the scientific community. I agree with oromagi that this is a good idea. Many laymen cannot dig into the literature themselves and certainly do not have a more correct picture of the data than actual experts. Unqualified people and dubious stories should not have access to the same communicative tools as the factual truth. I believe elevating the truth above everything else will be a beneficial change to the media landscape. By imposing scientific restrictions on what can be taught as fact, the proposed source would trancend controversy. After all, controversial issues are often the result of the lack of definitive evidence or scientific self-scrutiny. When science has settled an issue it means that all reasonable doubt has been silenced by overwhelming evidence. Those that reject expert consensus are not concerned with what is factually true.  I feel that it is both reasonable and justifiable to promote the facts and discredit misinformation.


That is more, not less, open to groupthink shaming things outside the norm ideas into silence.
Scientists don't give a damn about what random charletans say, and the same is true the other way around. Shaming people into silence is both virtually impossible and unthinkeable for experts. The idea is not to silence people but to allow those who are qualified to speak louder than everyone else. How is this bad?


I feel the need to clarify that I am talking about promoting facts, not opinion. The ideological battles can continue raging on but with misinformation being called out.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
Who the fuck are you to decide who can and can't express their views on a matter?

Why did you join a debate website if you're all about cancelling those with viewpoints and theories that you disagree with?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
Scientists don't give a damn about what random charletans say, and the same is true the other way around. Shaming people into silence is both virtually impossible and unthinkeable for experts. The idea is not to silence people but to allow those who are qualified to speak louder than everyone else. How is this bad?
And how would you achieve this 'loudness'? How would you 'quieten' those you deem unworthy and 'charlatan'?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
Those that reject expert consensus are not concerned with what is factually true. 
Yes they are. Otherwise, nobody could ever have disagree with the originals that the Earth was not flat and is round or now disagree with the current authoritative consensus and assert that the Earth is flat and not round.

People can oftentimes disagree with consensus and be concerned with truth, because flat earth, evolution, germ theory and so many other things involved rebels to consensus in the origins.
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Don't put words in my mouth. I never spoke a word about disallowing certain viewpoints or cancelling others to create an echo chamber. I am all for debate and disagreement. My point that you ignored was that unqualified people and dubious stories should not have access to the same communicative tools as the factual truth. I hope we can all agree that we shoud promote facts rather than fallacies. The only relevant question is how to responsibly promote the truth.

You simply skipped over the important points of mine. Disagreing with a unanimous expert consensus regarding an established fact is almost always a sign that you are wrong. I am not saying scientists should stop discussing new ideas or considering the posibility of being wrong -- I am saying that we should distinguish between facts established through the scientific method and claims that lack evidential support. The former is dogmatism while the latter is skepticism.


And how would you achieve this 'loudness'? How would you 'quieten' those you deem unworthy and 'charlatan'?
You read what I said. Charlatans can spout on, this is not a case for censorship. The idea presented was a source that only contains accurate information. This would give truth a communicative advantage because everyone's go-to site for information would be reliable and factually correct. With the truth readily available lazyness would no longer be a hindrance for people. The vision is simply a world in which the default source is also the most correct. How excactly is this bad?



RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
Don't put words in my mouth. I never spoke a word about disallowing certain viewpoints or cancelling others to create an echo chamber. 
Yes, you did, you are just being cunning as hell about your wording.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
You read what I said. Charlatans can spout on, this is not a case for censorship. The idea presented was a source that only contains accurate information. 
And how do we censor this source? Who decides what's 'correct'?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
My point that you ignored was that unqualified people and dubious stories should not have access to the same communicative tools as the factual truth.
I did not ignore this. Why are people lacking superficial qualifications not allowed to speak their mind? Why are people whose stories you deem 'dubious' not entitled to tell their stories? What limitations will occur on their communicative tools?
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,190
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Benjamin
Extremely well stated Benjamin.


But consider a universal intent, where methodology only utilises organic intelligence, rather than is all about organic intelligence. 

Perhaps it's just not necessary for everyone to be aware of the truth.

As long as human society functions in a way that progresses material evolution, then maybe we shouldn't concern ourselves so much with the quality of trivial day to day mass data transfer.

Maybe everything is actually functioning just as it should be. 

Accurate data is a need to know thing.

And very few people possess the need to know thing.
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Who decides what's 'correct'?
Nobody will be allowed to controll the flow of information to their liking. Correct means free for error; in accordance with fact or truth. The hypothetical source of correct information won't filter things through biased lenses or make up things --- it will simply report whatever information the sum of research shows to be correct.


Yes, you did, you are just being cunning as hell about your wording.,
Just because I want the truth to be heard loudest doesn't mean I support any kind of censorship or silencing of others. You may be tempted to assume I am arrogant and want all opposition thrown out the window, but that is far from the truth. Just in this year many of the views I have been exposed to on this site have convinced me to change my mind. What makes you think I am sneakily a dogmatic thinker irking for media censorship?


Why are people lacking superficial qualifications not allowed to speak their mind? 
Wy are unqualified people not allowed to write their own unscientific opinion in the world's collection of knowledge as if it were a fact? The answer is simple: Because they are not qualified and opinion is different from fact and their oppinion just so happens to contradict all scientific evidence. Do you really believe that for a factual source to be unbiased it has to embrace any and all opinions? What if two views contradict each other and the evidence clearly supports the first view?


What limitations will occur on their communicative tools?
None. You are imagining malintention where there is none. Nobody will be censored, the idea is to promote correct information and present it as such.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
Nobody will be allowed to controll the flow of information to their liking. Correct means free for error; in accordance with fact or truth. The hypothetical source of correct information won't filter things through biased lenses or make up things --- it will simply report whatever information the sum of research shows to be correct.
Okay and who is it that determines the information of being free of what they conclude is error and to be in accordance with what they deem fact or truth? Who determines what the sum of research is?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
Just because I want the truth to be heard loudest doesn't mean I support any kind of censorship or silencing of others. You may be tempted to assume I am arrogant and want all opposition thrown out the window, but that is far from the truth. Just in this year many of the views I have been exposed to on this site have convinced me to change my mind. What makes you think I am sneakily a dogmatic thinker irking for media censorship?
Yes it does. Instead of 'silencing' you adopt a cunning term 'quietening' instead. You do want all opposition thrown out of the window, yes that is precisely what you want. You want a singular source of information where that's deemed true and unbiased and any who oppose any of its conclusions are deemed unworthy of consideration as they are unequal to it in their ability to communicate and inform people.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
Wy are unqualified people not allowed to write their own unscientific opinion in the world's collection of knowledge as if it were a fact?
You keep only referring to science, I hope you understand that there's more than science that truth matters with.

In fact, science is one of the only areas where everything is a theory, the 'facts' are meaningless without the current working theory and that's open to debate if people have alternative explanations for the correlations occurring.

Anybody should have the right to write their unqualified opinion, so long as they are not purely using it to harm others' wellbeing. If you are unqualified in science, your opinion can be scientific, if you are qualified in science your opinion can be unscientific.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
 The answer is simple: Because they are not qualified and opinion is different from fact and their oppinion just so happens to contradict all scientific evidence.
How is opinion different to fact when you are saying that the opinion of the qualified is to be taken as true without questioning it and the opinion of the unqualified is to be taken as untrue without considering it?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
What limitations will occur on their communicative tools?
None. You are imagining malintention where there is none. Nobody will be censored, the idea is to promote correct information and present it as such.
That is impossible. You are lying.

You said this: 
My point that you ignored was that unqualified people and dubious stories should not have access to the same communicative tools as the factual truth.
I asked you what limitations you will have in place in order to inhibit this access.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,439
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Benjamin
I think the solution is success, prestige, and logic explained.

We trust experts because they are right more often than those wrong.
We trust explanations that make sense/reason.

Though when mistakes are made, or logic is not explained satisfactorily, prestige suffers.
Take Covid, I 'greatly dislike ads that just say, Take the shot, take the shot, take the shot, I am an actor paid to be a doctor.

Or when errors are made, it knocks the prestige/trustability.

Though errors exist, and it's not wrong for professionals to change their view.

. . .

Still with all this said, Experts, (Joke)
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
Perhaps it's just not necessary for everyone to be aware of the truth.
I am a firm believer in pluralism of ideas and opinions, especially in a democracy. However for constructive discourse one needs a common ground of established facts. Let me give an example. How can one productively discuss public health policy without aggreing on the science of biology and socioeconomics? Maybe its not even possible. In other scenarioes ignorance of the truth can have devastating outcomes like a defunct climate policy. We should be gratefull for freedom of speech and public disagreement is a good sign -- but ignorance and misinformation should still be combated just like they try to combat the correct information.


Very few people possess the need to know thing.
I would say very few people are smart enoug to know that other people know more than them. Most people value truth and always attribute it to their own beliefs.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,190
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Benjamin
I would suggest that everyone does what they do, without knowing why they are actually doing it.

The real truth is unknowable.


You only seem concerned with the machinations of human society.

Whereas I was attempting to look at a bigger universal picture.......One that involves humanity, but might also exceed humanity.
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
I asked you what limitations you will have in place in order to inhibit this access.
You misunderstand the nature of the science promotion idea. There is no censorship or attack on anyone - the internet will be free as always. The people can chose to listen to alternative "facts" if they like. The idea was for an internation team of professionals to collect the most well-established scientific facts into a single place. That way, one can learn about the scientific facts without wasting time navigating the scientific literature or relying ong unreliable third party sites.


How is opinion different to fact
A fact is a valid observation about reality confirmed by evidence. No claim unconfirmed by evidence can be called fact. Opinions that directly contradict facts are by definition false. Just because someone disbelieves in the corona virus does not mean that there is valid reason for discussion. Opinions should be accepted for discussion only when they are based on the facts, not when they contradict them. In cases where evidence is lacking or unclear - thats where controversy is justified.



 you are saying that
  • the opinion of the qualified is to be taken as true without questioning it
  • the opinion of the unqualified is to be taken as untrue without considering it
The former claim is false. Evidence is necesary for the confirmation of a fact, and not scientific theory has ever been established without intense scrutiny. The latter claim is true. Untill a claim is proven true it should be assumed untrue. The fallacy that you are making is failing to acknowledge the meaning between a fact and opinion. If your opinion contradicts the evidence it means it must be false unless the evidence changes. This is not called censorship, it is called logic.



Any who oppose any of its conclusions are deemed unworthy
Nope. The site does not attempt to judge people, its mission is to report the known facts. People who oppose the science can go challenge the science directly if they want. 
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Benjamin
Your ideal of scientific thinking is to believe whatever experts your favorite news station trots in front of you. Be honest Benjamin. You just blindly trust authority and lack critical thinking