Bullshit fighting
stactivist.com
stactivist.com
How many times do you give up on a social media argument just because you don't want to spend the next 30-60 minutes researching and building a solid case for your argument? I've given up completely. The bullshitters win.
So even if I carefully build a case for "true", it won't make much of a difference. At best, they decide their next personally useful statement is a non sequitur or a topic change or just going to some other context that is useful.
To me that's one of the really amazing things about Trump's rise. He really doesn't care about facts or logic or consistency. Even among politicians, he's a standout; none of his Republican opponents could come to grips with how totally irrelevant accuracy or orthodoxy are to his game. People keep trying to figure out what his true views are, but at this point I don't think that's a meaningful question.
And I should add that this isn't a left vs right issue; a recent example of a left-wing demagogue was Venezuela's Chavez. But Trump's rise is the first time I've gotten to see it happen up close.
And it is quite disappointing because most people only have a few moments of attention span.
It is an amount of magnitude more harmful to be labeled troll than imaginative.
Most BSer are hiding themselves behind smoke screen of so called innovation, saying the old ways have always tended to be wrong.
And the mass is BSing to. Pretending to know more than what it actually knows.
Bullshit is a global shared social attitude.
> One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern, or attracted much sustained inquiry. In consequence, we have no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much of it, or what functions it serves. And we lack a conscientiously developed appreciation of what it means to us. In other words, we have no theory. I propose to begin the development of a theoretical understanding of bullshit, mainly by providing some tentative and exploratory philosophical analysis.
Information asymmetry. Bullshit is applied game theory.
As with much in philosophy, it often boils down to deciding for onesself rather than appealing to autority. http://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf
Most likely yes. The author works in a scientific institute and has number of publications.
Don't wrestle with pigs; you both get muddy, and the pigs like it.
Even within science, there are problems like publication bias and political bias.
I'm guessing it applies to the way research money is attributed. Whoever follows the most recent hype gets all the funding.
Yeah, because it has proven so effective thus far /s
People form visions of the world based on their beliefs systems and they pull/push that vision in their behavior and the things they build.
To show what I mean about this: in a way, many good entrepreneurs are reality deniers. They need to refuse to believe that the current status quo is the best that the world can be. They need to believe a reality that does not exist (yet) in order to build it. For people with affinity they will be visionaries, for people that antagonise with them they will be bullshitters.
But that's how disruption happens, with cultural and market irreverence. That is pitched "selling smoke" (in the eyes of the cynic) or selling a new way to experience X in life (in the eyes of its believers and users/clients)
While we've found the the scientific meathod doesn't scale, I suspect that a Watson style application could seriously help one day. This is only compounded this with the "publish or perish" mentality. This encourages falsifying results, but also adds more noise to the pool of journals, decreasing your chance of being called out. I don't think the issue is with liars, but with the system.
What we really need now is Scienceology, (no not the religion) but a division of science that analyzes science. Finding better ways than what we have now.
edit: Cleaned up to make it slightly less nonsensical. I really shouldn't make a comment before having a coffee.
EDIT: Let say it's not in the company DNA and that it's just some individuals behaviours.
I assume we aren't talking a technical argument. If we are, then do a presentation and it will all come out in the Q&A.
It makes bullshitting clearly BETTER. Being overly defensive about it, misses the point. BS is hard to combat, which is why it's a successful approach (not even a learned strategy because then it would be lying).