The fake news of the fake news.
If you are concerned about global warming, well, it's time to relax. Seems there is a bigger issue on this planet, and the issue is "fake news". I was trying to dig a bit into this issue, and then I started thinking to the "usual" problem about the truth: even having some authority like Facebook checking against "fake news", who controls Facebook then? Maybe Facebook would like to publish (fake) good news about Facebook, right?
Of course thinking like that ends in a loop, until I realized the point: saying "now we have a problem with fake news", is having sense only under the assumption **that we hadn't the problem before**. Of course, If I assume that before of the Trump's campaign all the news were saying the truth, of course we end at the point where yes, sure, we have an issue.
Unfortunately, this is not true at all.
The so called "post-truth" era should be called "still-bullshit" era, with the only difference that, during the Trump campaign, the orchestrator of fake news was the Internet, let's say the suburb of the internet, and not the mainstream media.
Take an example how the press is describing news: by example, we see that "the _country X_ is growing less than the predictions", so we think that the country X has a problem. Unfortunately, the same news should be written in another way: "prediction on Country X failed".
If you compare
- Country X has grown just 25% of prediction -> Country X has a serious problem.
- Predictions on Country X were wrong of 400% -> Predictors are incompetent
you see we are discussing of the same numbers. Still predictions were 4 times higher than reality. But, in one case we are discussing how bad the people doing predictions is, in the other we are discussing how bad the country is.
Who of two is right? In such a case, the answer is easy: since predictions must match reality, and not vice versa, it is clear that the 2. is the right one. If weather forecast aren't matching tomorrow's weather, you don't say the weather is wrong, right?
Here is the trick of the "fake news": even discussing of facts, the same fact may be written in different ways, thus producing a complete different news.
If I put this into account, and I go checking whether we had "fake news" or not, I see that basically to check facts is pointless. In the example I made above, the fact is the same for 1. and 2. : in both cases, predictions were 4 times bigger than what happened. But, in one case the country is to blame, in the other predictors are to blame.
"Facts checking" won't work: the fact is the same.
Now, imagine you have 2 candidates, like Hillary and Trump. The capability to put the news in such a way is basically the ability to sell the same facts putting the blame here or there. And no, facts would be the same.
In the same way, we are now told we are in the "post-truth" era. Which seems fine, until we assume the past was the "truth era". Even more, to listen at people saying "post-truth", will make people to think before they had the truth.
So the best was to say "what we've said in the past was true", is to say "we are in the post-truth era".
If anyone told you "we always said the truth in the past", you would probably make fun of them. You would scream "bullshit! You were always liar". But, telling you "we are in the post-truth era", you make your attention focusing to the present, maybe the future, while your mind accepts the assumption that , in the past, you only get the truth.
This is why, I think the very fake news we are having is that we NOW started to have fake news.
And the issue in this sentence is not "fake news", is "NOW".
it seems to not only be a question of whether something is bullshit or not, but which of the many flavors, colors, odors and textures of shit is it? if the basic list of logical fallacies is applied to almost any news item, with near invariability we find appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, false dilemma, oh, there are so many from which to choose. please Aristotle, stop me.
who can be a legitimate arbiter of what is truth? who is devoid of personal agenda?
i say let anyone and everyone report whatever they will. let the individual arm their own self with grammar, logic and rhetoric, and find the truth individually.
those who are successful, let them succeed.
when we assign an authority over truth, we have set ourselves up for failure.
You said: " let the individual arm their own self with grammar, logic and rhetoric", which means "let's bring good education to everyone" . With no education, no grammar, no logic, neither rhetoric are possible....
thanks for the reply.
grammar (structure), logic (assembly) and rhetoric (use) of language, and how it relates to our understanding of, and our action in the world, is the composition of a good education. Without these, no understanding is possible, without these, there is no ability to make use of facts, or observations, except to flail about blindly, hoping what we have in our hand is a hammer as we try to hit the nail that we cannot see and only hope we understood the rules of the game. some superstitions may accidentally acquire accuracy in predicting cause and effect, but without method of reproducibility, it is understanding that is reduced in it's usefulness, and it's error may lead quickly to less than desirable outcomes.
Agree. Which is why I think your plan is pretty ambitious: if you expect everybody to use structure, assembly and language (and which language: I speak 4 , and when I am not using my native one is very hard) you expect everybody to have a good education, where "good education" means "higher education". To bring the whole population to the higher education is not an easy task.....
this used to be only the first part in a basic education, the Trivium Method. then, there is the Quadrivium, which is the math part, which is also a language. it used to be that a high education could not be had without this basis. there are vanishingly small number schools that teach these now. i would be ecstatic if ten percent of the population could be brought to the level of basic reason. i do not expect to teach everyone myself, so i'm not really all that ambitious. i have come to the understanding that, i can inform those who are curious, and let the rest find their own way.
i do think most of this can be adapted to almost any language, but only being a speaker of English, math, and a very rusty Latin, i cannot be sure.
i live in America, and do not expect that anyone has a good education. mine, i've had to acquire myself, and am still learning. i have always had a desire for knowledge, and do not know how to encourage it or instill it in others, so, i search for other like minded people, and interact with them. steemit has made this easier. most of the people i meet in my immediate "meat space" world are less curious, or capable of deciding which news is fake, than a brain damaged monkey, and likely to remain so.
it seems to me that the benefits of knowledge should be incentive enough to desire learning. i have been searching for a way to further incentivise this , but have not found much. manipulation may serve, but i'd rather not use this, for it seems dishonest. if you have ideas about this, please do share them.
i have the Lobo comic from which your picture comes. it is one of my favorite comic series. there is also "Lobo's paramilitary Christmas special", a one issue, darkly comedic, very entertaining.