undefined | Better HN

0 pointsslg5y ago0 comments

>I think the answer is pretty simple: restore neutrality and objectivity to epistemological institutions. This doesn't mean that empirically false right-wing viewpoints need to be presented on equal footing with empirically true left-wing viewpoints, but rather that subjective issues should be described objectively rather than in the left-wing narrative.

How does this actually work in practice? What does this look like in terms of the coverage of climate change?

>Similarly, when popular left-wing mistruths arise, these institutions should call them out as they would right-wing mistruths, however infrequently this may happen. In a word, "honesty".

This already happens. Look at the NYT repealing of the Caliphate stories. How often do we get a retraction as big and public as that from the right?

>Conservatives (like everyone) need to specifically believe there is a path forward for their legitimate viewpoints, rather than the current system which more-or-less equally discredits legitimate and illegitimate conservative viewpoints. In addition to restoring objectivity and neutrality to epistemological institutions, we could also actively encourage more conservatives to participate in these institutions (and of course, treat them fairly and respectfully as they accept the invitation) to reverse decades of driving them out of these institutions. Yes, this is basically affirmative action for conservatives, and I appreciate the irony.

I will repeat my question from my last comment. Is there an example of this actually working? Is there an example of an institution that has lost the right's trust that was able to get it back through catering to their viewpoints while also remaining loyal to the truth? I am genuinely asking and not trying to be a jerk by just presenting rhetorical questions.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

throwaway8943455y ago· 2 in thread

> How does this actually work in practice? What does this look like in terms of the coverage of climate change?

I think the climate science, reporting, and advocacy seems pretty good (at least with respect to bias). Maybe we could be a bit more aggressive about policing climate alarmism and other kinds of misinformation (the notion that banning plastic straws is going to have a measurable impact on wildlife such that it's worthy of our political will) or the pseudo-religious ideological takes like the arguments that climate change and "white supremacy" are inextricably linked or whatever. But in general, I don't see climate professionals behaving as badly as the media en masse or social scientists or other institutions--they seem to be genuinely open to bipartisan solutions and note that this openness doesn't require them to deny science (contrary to the dichotomous arguments that some make when people suggest cooperation or neutrality or objectivity).

> This already happens. Look at the NYT repealing of the Caliphate stories. How often do we get a retraction as big and public as that from the right?

Consistency, consistency, consistency. It's not enough to be honest or well-behaved once, it has to be a protracted effort over time. On the basis of this one event, a reasonable person wouldn't conclude that NYT is genuinely aspiring toward honesty and neutrality, much less someone who tends toward paranoia.

> I will repeat my question from my last comment. Is there an example of this actually working?

Sorry, if you asked this question, I missed it. I don't know of any examples because I don't know of other instances where people were divided epistemologically like this. Case studies would be interesting.

> Is there an example of an institution that has lost the right's trust that was able to get it back through catering to their viewpoints while also remaining loyal to the truth?

I don't think that "the right" has ever been this detached from mainstream epistemology in the first place--I don't think our institutions have ever been as compromised as they are now, at least not on a left-right axis. But there's probably no reason to limit our case studies to corruption of a left-right nature; we could equally look for any institution that lost the trust of a group of people and then gained it back (in part or in full).

> I am genuinely asking and not trying to be a jerk by just presenting rhetorical questions.

I didn't perceive you being a jerk. :)

slgOP5y ago

>I think the climate science, reporting, and advocacy seems pretty good (at least with respect to bias)

Doesn't this blow a hole in your whole argument? If there is little bias in this climate change coverage and conservatives still object to it, what makes you think they will accept any form of objective truth?

>Consistency, consistency, consistency. It's not enough to be honest or well-behaved once, it has to be a protracted effort over time. On the basis of this one event, a reasonable person wouldn't conclude that NYT is genuinely aspiring toward honesty and neutrality, much less someone who tends toward paranoia.

You aren't going to get an argument from me that the mainstream media is perfect on this. However I think it is clear that centrist and left leaning media is much much better about this than right leaning media.

>I don't think that "the right" has ever been this detached from mainstream epistemology in the first place--I don't think our institutions have ever been as compromised as they are now, at least not on a left-right axis. But there's probably no reason to limit our case studies to corruption of a left-right nature; we could equally look for any institution that lost the trust of a group of people and then gained it back (in part or in full).

Fair enough, but the loss of trust needs to be linked primarily to a perceived lack of truthfulness and I can't think of any examples of that either that aren't linked with an overt lack of truthfulness. Right now any bias in reporting, no matter how small, is magnified and even truthful and completely objective reporting is seen as biased. I simply don't know how you regain trust after that when the problem is more exaggerated in people's perception than in reality.

throwaway8943455y ago

> Doesn't this blow a hole in your whole argument? If there is little bias in this climate change coverage and conservatives still object to it, what makes you think they will accept any form of objective truth?

I don't think so. I think the bias in other fields poisons the well of good faith. Specifically the conservative interface to these fields is probably angry people on the Internet who are as likely to bash them for their climate politics as for their opinions on BLM protests. If they were better plugged-in to the sciences, I think they would see that climate science is less problematic than critical studies.

> You aren't going to get an argument from me that the mainstream media is perfect on this. However I think it is clear that centrist and left leaning media is much much better about this than right leaning media.

I agree. I think even when things were good in these institutions, their relationship with the right was already strained.

> Fair enough, but the loss of trust needs to be linked primarily to a perceived lack of truthfulness and I can't think of any examples of that either that aren't linked with an overt lack of truthfulness.

I'm having a hard time thinking of examples too. I think that the 'perceived vs overt' consideration is just a reflection on how bad things have gotten--if you abuse the trust of someone for a long time, eventually their perception of affairs will become exaggerated. That's basically the whole thesis. Note that it's possible that we can't regain the trust of some people who have such a distorted view, but even still it's worth being honest if only to keep more people from crossing the threshold (and insodoing, those who have already crossed will become more marginalized and constitute a decreasing percentage of the population).

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse