An earlier post looked at the problem of how to find truth when there are no experts you can trust. This one looks at the problem of deciding what is true in a world of imperfect information and unreliable sources from a different angle, starting with the commercial version of the problem.
Great essay. I have a suggestion! A corollary, on how to decide which news report to trust.
People seem to decide this on a different granularity, i.e. which newspaper to trust. But each newspaper is right about some things. Many mistakes are made dismissing entire newspapers.
That is partly a matter of learning to judge articles on internal information. Does the author offer the best arguments against his position that you can think of and deal with them? Does he qualify his claims? More generally, does he seem to be trying to persuade you or to do an honest job of presenting information?
Would you please expound on this with examples? Take a news report, put it into Google document and select phrases in it to highlight and add your comments. Then post that document here on substack.
It seems essential critical thinking to me, that many people have abandoned.
I checked out data secrets lox, but it seems to be the exact same thing as the subreddit. Is there any meaningful difference between what you'd expect to get out of them? I'm banned from Astral Codex 10 so I can't post there. (For being incomprehensible, not for doing anything bad.)
“Facebook, in my experience, doesn’t do it” — I use Facebook as a way of talking to my friends (many of whom live in other countries). It is possible to talk to a wider group of people on Facebook, but then you’ll get a random assortment who probably won't be the kind you’re looking for. If you talk only to your friends, you can choose whom to accept as a friend (although, of course, they have the same freedom of choice).
Indeed. I tend to avoid troubling my friends with anything particularly controversial. There’s no real need to do so. Sadly, my experience is that, in practice, argument is not a way to arrive at the truth, it’s just a way to raise blood pressure and make enemies.
Your problem is that you’re a more honest arguer than almost anyone you’re likely to run into on any forum, so you naturally tend to be disappointed in the people you encounter, anywhere. Even when I disagree with you on matters of opinion (which may happen sometimes), I can respect that. I wish humans in general were so scrupulous.
> If you want to know whether someone can be trusted as a source of historical information, whether a history professor or a fellow historical recreationist, get him talking about something where you already know that the popular account is wrong.
In my case, I judge Western newspapers based on how they report on events in India. The types of errors they make are from negligence and the fact that the subject is extremely complex. Also, they're sometimes promoting an ideology.
I think your comment answers Eugene's. Obviously the method doesn't work if your own beliefs are sufficiently unreliable. But most of us have some area, such as India for Deepa, where we know considerably more than the average reporter or blogger does.
My three examples were not random. I've been cooking from medieval cookbooks for over fifty years, can point you at an Arabic pasta recipe published fifty years before Marco Polo, can point out that most medieval recipes don't have quantities, making it hard to know how heavily spiced they are, and at a couple of pieces of evidence that the intensity of their spicing was consistent with modern tastes.
On the other hand, I can't judge the accuracy of an article about India, with rare exceptions.
I think this is why curation of news through experts one can trust is such a popular idea! Twitter, for example. I follow certain ppl for curating the news for me. Example : Eric Topol, on covid. I trust his curating on this with one caveat in mind - he is not an epidemiologist.
> Astro Codex Ten
Friendly correction: It's 'Astral.'
Great essay. I have a suggestion! A corollary, on how to decide which news report to trust.
People seem to decide this on a different granularity, i.e. which newspaper to trust. But each newspaper is right about some things. Many mistakes are made dismissing entire newspapers.
That is partly a matter of learning to judge articles on internal information. Does the author offer the best arguments against his position that you can think of and deal with them? Does he qualify his claims? More generally, does he seem to be trying to persuade you or to do an honest job of presenting information?
Would you please expound on this with examples? Take a news report, put it into Google document and select phrases in it to highlight and add your comments. Then post that document here on substack.
It seems essential critical thinking to me, that many people have abandoned.
Also, do you think you could provide an example of a news report where the authors PRETENDS to do what you say, but actually does not?
I guess you covered this possibility when you said "best arguments against his position that **you can think of**".
My judgement cannot be replaced with an algorithm. Ultimately, my judgement is all there is to protect me.
I checked out data secrets lox, but it seems to be the exact same thing as the subreddit. Is there any meaningful difference between what you'd expect to get out of them? I'm banned from Astral Codex 10 so I can't post there. (For being incomprehensible, not for doing anything bad.)
I used to like the Huffington post, but I should note I've seen the same dynamic in the Daily Mail. Might just be incompetence.
I personally read the NYT, Al Jazeera, and the drudge report, if I'm interested in finding out the news (rare at this point in my life)
“Facebook, in my experience, doesn’t do it” — I use Facebook as a way of talking to my friends (many of whom live in other countries). It is possible to talk to a wider group of people on Facebook, but then you’ll get a random assortment who probably won't be the kind you’re looking for. If you talk only to your friends, you can choose whom to accept as a friend (although, of course, they have the same freedom of choice).
I find FB useful for several things, but not as a place to find and engage in good arguments on controversial topics.
Indeed. I tend to avoid troubling my friends with anything particularly controversial. There’s no real need to do so. Sadly, my experience is that, in practice, argument is not a way to arrive at the truth, it’s just a way to raise blood pressure and make enemies.
Your problem is that you’re a more honest arguer than almost anyone you’re likely to run into on any forum, so you naturally tend to be disappointed in the people you encounter, anywhere. Even when I disagree with you on matters of opinion (which may happen sometimes), I can respect that. I wish humans in general were so scrupulous.
> If you want to know whether someone can be trusted as a source of historical information, whether a history professor or a fellow historical recreationist, get him talking about something where you already know that the popular account is wrong.
There's a chicken and egg problem here.
Yes, how do YOU know something for sure ?
In my case, I judge Western newspapers based on how they report on events in India. The types of errors they make are from negligence and the fact that the subject is extremely complex. Also, they're sometimes promoting an ideology.
I think your comment answers Eugene's. Obviously the method doesn't work if your own beliefs are sufficiently unreliable. But most of us have some area, such as India for Deepa, where we know considerably more than the average reporter or blogger does.
My three examples were not random. I've been cooking from medieval cookbooks for over fifty years, can point you at an Arabic pasta recipe published fifty years before Marco Polo, can point out that most medieval recipes don't have quantities, making it hard to know how heavily spiced they are, and at a couple of pieces of evidence that the intensity of their spicing was consistent with modern tastes.
On the other hand, I can't judge the accuracy of an article about India, with rare exceptions.
I think this is why curation of news through experts one can trust is such a popular idea! Twitter, for example. I follow certain ppl for curating the news for me. Example : Eric Topol, on covid. I trust his curating on this with one caveat in mind - he is not an epidemiologist.
I listed the ones I am familiar with.