I think people are suggesting not perfection, but a higher standard and thus increased likelihood of it being correct and requiring a higher standard for proving it incorrect or biased.
Do you have an organization that, if they publish something even if it runs counter to your own opinions, you assume that it is fair and likely to be correct?
>Ok. Bias is present in all information. I'm not aware that anyone was denying that, but there you go.
>Do you believe the existence of an unbiased source of information is required before any attempt can be made to correct the bias in any specific source of information?
If bias in information must be fixed and all information has bias then all information must be fixed. That may be the case but you cannot escape the bias of the fact checkers so we will end up where we started? How do you fix bias without creating bias?
> If I don’t want to be accountable for the quality or correctness of their opinions, I shouldn’t put out the chairs and invite people to sit down and hold forth.
What metric are you using to objectively decide the "correctness" of an opinion? Can you propose a system that would work? I'm sure many publications are looking for one..
> It's safe for them to express their opinions, because the source of their opinions is whatever it's currently acceptable to believe.
The premise is not sound. Not everyone who has a conventionally accepted idea has that idea because the idea is conventionally accepted. It could be, for example, that there is some other cause that leads to me having an idea and that idea being conventionally accepted.
As an obvious example, I don’t think that one plus one equals two because I observe that to be conventionally accepted. I have good reasons to think that’s true even if most people disagreed. And I certainly wouldn’t think anyone who disagrees was being discriminated against for having unconventional ideas.
That isn't bias but rather an understanding of burden of proof. If you think it is, then you are very fundamentally misinformed about how our society functions.
> Though people sometimes pretend otherwise, a lot of research is dressed up informed opinion, put into a formal setting with standardized argument styles so that it can be compared and assessed against other informed opinions. None the less, such work done honestly and diligently advances the human condition.
I ... think we actually agree here.
In fact, to prove your point: I have no chance of accounting for the origins of my opinions, because they stem from decades of osmosis and subjective experiences. But I can at least be honest about something I say, do or argue being an opinion. The same way you just did.
> If the sources are bad, how can you make any such statement about conclusions in the work?
I’m not making any statement about the conclusions in the work.
I’m making a statement about the controversy around the work, from observing that controversy, including reading extensive material from people objecting at the time it first became controversial.
The controversy was never over the broad idea that different populations have different distributions of different attributes.
> What if, there was in fact an organization comprised of people smarter than you and obviously better than you at figuring out what is true or not - and I would go further - one that can tell you how to make better/more optimal decisions than you would have made without them?
> Would you then cede your decision making to them if it were demonstrably better?
No. Nobody should ever have to cede their decision making authority. If this organization is so smart and right, they should have no trouble finding a way to convince people without coercion
Even, if they are smarter than me, are they perfect? Is it impossible for them to be wrong? Of course not. That's why we need multiple sources. Nobody is right about everything all the time. All of this talk about "misinformation" ignores the possibility that you might one day be a source of misinformation, so it is vitally important that people be able to disagree with you.
> This is the absolutely critical point that people are either too privileged to have ever thought of, or too disingenuous to admit.
...or fundamentally disagree with? Yes, you're describing something real. You're also setting a double standard. Is it possible to understand the premises but come to different conclusions?
> The mistake here is seeing a counter-argument as being against a person, rather than as against a particular artifact. What matters is what’s out there.
This is not how it works in most of real life. There are political impacts within a community or organization depending on how an argument goes down. Potentially permanent schisms.
> So, if the critiques of an article find only “moderately bad flaws”, that often increases my trust because my prior was that the flaws would be even worse. If the claim that some types of watermelon taste bad to certain people at some times of the year survives the skeptics, then that might be an above-average outcome.
This is empirically not how most people operate.
> We need to design our norms around the unfortunate reality that most people are not helpful when criticized.
No, design norms around getting the best possible world. That unfortunate reality is only one of many factors to take into account.
---
I'll hold judgement on the conclusion overall; I think it may make sense for arguments when nothing political is on the line and everyone is a psuedorationlist. Beyond that...unsure.
> I don't think there's anything inconsistent about this.
It amounts to saying that anything that benefits me is good and anything to my detriment is bad. Sure, there's a consistency to that. However, if that's the foundation of one's positions, it leads to all manner of other logical inconsistencies and hypocrisies.
> This sort of interpretation makes me question the objectiveness of the article itself.
Why does disagreeing with the article make you conclude that it's not objective? Can't you just, you know, disagree, without questioning the other side's motives, intelligence, objectiveness, etc?
> people... criticize X for its pitfalls, while calling for what’s actually in X
My experience says this is true for a lot of things where I'm a subject-matter expert. I suspect it's also true about several of my own criticisms of things where I'm not an expert, but it's difficult to find out.
This site is made up of people, just like all the other sites out there. As a group, HN is no more or less susceptible to biases and irrationality than any other group of people or any other website. Our starting lemma should be that we are flawed, not that we are inherently less flawed. Acknowledging our biases and irrationalities is the first step toward overcoming them.
> That is not a tautology at all. It is closer to a contradiction.
I actually meant a non sequitur, but can't edit at this point.
> My point wasn't that I agree with the statement. My point is that the statement has clarity, and that it actually communicates an idea.
> The very fact that the statement could be falsified means to me that it is not bullshit as meant in the article. That is not to say the statement is true!
Yes, this is fair. I misunderstood the point you were trying to make. My apology!
I think people are suggesting not perfection, but a higher standard and thus increased likelihood of it being correct and requiring a higher standard for proving it incorrect or biased.
Do you have an organization that, if they publish something even if it runs counter to your own opinions, you assume that it is fair and likely to be correct?
reply