Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The problem is that there is a well-funded war on facts.

This isn't new either; the legacy version was the systematic denial that smoking caused cancer. This has been going on since the 1950s, and is still being litigated. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/

The result of this is that any single point of fact-determination becomes a target. It's good of Facebook to take some kind of stand against the most fraudulent and racist articles that get circulated on there; the "blood libel" against Jews and so on. But now they're dragged into the other conflicts. There will be a lot of money available from Exxon-Mobil to deny climate change, for example.

Ultimately the concept of "fact" as something outside subjectivity will be destroyed. The rotation of the earth around the sun is really just your opinion, right? /s If heliocentricity were politically convenient or profitable there would be an astroturf campaign promoting it on facebook.

(A subgenre of this is libel lawsuits, which are much less of a problem in the US due to "anti-SLAPP" laws: https://www.medialaw.org/topics-page/anti-slapp?tmpl=compone... but may be a significant problem in the UK; e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/dec/17/bbc-trafigura and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case , lasting over a decade)

Ideally, facts could assert themselves. Unfortunately, humans are needed to assert facts, and therefor any judgements based on facts require human interpretation.

We can dissolve interpretations down as far as we like to leave as little room for bias and dishonesty (and that is a useful effort), but ultimately there will always be POWER in the hands of those who we abdicate arbitration authority to.

...and power corrupts.

The alternative is creating a diverse ecosystem of organizations/individuals who's analysis/logic people can choose to subscribe to and judge based on the reputation that they garner over time.

...and diversity of thought and analysis liberates.

> The alternative is creating a diverse ecosystem of organizations/individuals who's analysis/logic people can choose to subscribe to

Allowing people to "choose" to subscribe to certain things has the ability to get them and others killed. That's why I mentioned the blood libel, while desperately casting around for something that people on HN wouldn't pointlessly dispute as subjective.

The bar for "this is genuinely dangerous" should be very high, though!

(the question of "what is a fact" could easily absorb a large part of an undergraduate History and Philosophy of Science degree, but we can all agree that there are certain things which are provably not facts?)

This is normally why we have limits on behavior like using violence to push viewpoints. You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into, but we also know that if you try to suppress them then they'll double down on their viewpoint. The best way to push a cause is to have a martyr.

There is no person fit to play the censor. Power corrupts. What starts as an intent to stop climate change denialism ends with being false about warrantless surveillance. What starts with trying to limit hate speech frequently ends with picking favorites.

OK, so... now what?

You've correctly identified a number of practical problems with combatting misinformation. However, this does not change the fact that misinformation exists and does real harm.

So if you can neither change a person's opinion, nor keep them from influencing others, what would you propose we do?

There are costs to living in a free society. Harm from letting people believe falsehoods is one of them. Soldiers dying to protect you from those seeking to destroy you is another.

If people aren't free to believe false things and even to try to spread those falsehoods to others, then it's no longer a free society. And one day, a thing you know to be true will be deemed false and you might still think that the problem is just that the wrong people have this power.

"some of you may die, but this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make."

Like, are you aware how high those costs can actually get? Who decided that the costs are worth it? Like, would you say the costs of leading someone into drinking bleach will be worth it?

I absolutely support the right for everyone to have an opinion, but we have to acknowledge that now all opinions are equally valid - otherwise, were regressing from several centuries of empirical science.

So at the very least, we have to give people the tools to distinguish opinions with a solid scientific basis from unqualified ones or ones given in bad faith. Fact checkers are one tool in this.

>Like, would you say the costs of leading someone into drinking bleach will be worth it?

Not to take sides, but one could argue the costs of the statement you're talking about are insignificant.

The assumption would be that anyone who is that easily influenced to do something that severely harms themselves is subject to many such influences and therefore adding or subtracting a single one doesn't change the probability of disaster noticeably in the long run.

If a straw can break a camel's back, does that mean burning a million straws saves a million camels?

...but if it can save just one...

Teach logic. ...at a young age. Fundamental logic and reason.

That is the first step. Most of the dangerous content online is visibly illogical, and driven purely on emotion.

Yes, and we're all susceptible to emotion to some degree, no matter the age and no matter the education.

There has been extensive research done in public relations, advertising and consumer psychology how to manipulate people emotionally and make them act against reason.

A bit of training in logical thinking is definitely not enough to counter this.

We're living in the age of emotions. Reason and logic are dead.

They are alive and well. Don't confuse Twitter and social media for the real world.

This is extraordinarily well put.

> the question of "what is a fact" could easily absorb a large part of an undergraduate History and Philosophy of Science degree

Is it really that complicated? It seems like, at least if you subscribe to a certain definition of fact, it becomes straightforward.

Example Fact: I observed that in a sample of X smokers who smoked Y cigarettes a day, Z developed lung cancer.

Example non-Fact: Smoking causes approximately Z rate of lung cancer.

The fact is about an observation that definitely indisputably happened. The non-fact is an extrapolation which is probably close to accurate given sufficiently good studies, but is nevertheless an extrapolation from facts rather than a fact itself. "Gravity is just a theory" and all that.

By this definition of fact, there are actually relatively few facts of general interest. Most of what we're interested in are theories we derive from facts which is where interpretation comes in. There may have been other confounding factors in the study, but as far as the study results are concerned, those were definitely what was measured.

However, my question is genuine. Is this a simplistic view of what a fact is, and if so, why?

And then, assuming you can get people to agree on the accuracy of the observation and on the causation, people can still argue about the best course of action to address a problem. Assuming people don't agree on causation, you might never get enough trials of solutions to learn anything about what a best solution might look like.

Whether or not people agree on something is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a fact. Earth will orbit the sun, no matter how many people may or may not be comfortable with it.

Finding out what is and what is not a fact can be extremely difficult. However, we've spent the last few centuries developing tools to tackle this problem in the for of the scientific method.

The comment I was replying to pointed out that accurate observations are indisputable facts. To paraphrase the next part, determining causation from observations can be a matter of fact (where you understand the mechanism of causation very well), or of deciding that we're satisfied that the experimentation we've done demonstrates causation (which is not at all the same thing as proving causation). We can also do something like offer a plausible mechanism for causation, which, while often useful, is not particularly close to a fact in the vein of the Earth orbiting the sun.

You're obviously correct that belief doesn't make something a fact, but what to do when a fact hinges on a study? Who decides if the study is good enough? Obviously there is an objective truth, but is the study enough to find it?

> what to do when a fact hinges on a study? Who decides if the study is good enough? Obviously there is an objective truth, but is the study enough to find it?

Good point. This is definitely not trivial or easy - but this exactly the problem that empirical science has been developing tools for.

Technically, a theory cannot be "proven" - at some point, there could always appear another Einstein and overturn everything - but there are still theories which stay consistent with all observations - i.e. "facts" - for an extensively long time. The standard model of physics is such an example: It's not "proven", but for decades any attempt to disprove it has failed and an enormous amount of working technology has been developed by assuming the model accurately reflects reality.

In a similar way, a single study is probably not enough to make a new theory credible - however if the claims of the theory can be consistently reproduced in additional studies, this gives more justification to rely on it. (And more justification to be sceptical of critics)

> Whether or not people agree on something is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a fact.

No, it's actually the ENTIRE meaning of "fact". Because "fact" is a word, and it has no meaning if we don't agree.

I'm sorry, I don't get it. Could you elaborate?

«Earth orbits the Sun» is not a very meaningful or scientific statement. «Frame of reference tied to the Sun is closer to an inertial one than the one tied to Earth» is better, but try explaining it to random person on Facebook.

What's wrong with "Earth orbits the sun"?

For nitpicky physicists, all objects in a system orbit each other, so the Earth as well as the sun and other planets orbit a common centre (which happens to be inside the sun).

For more obtuse people, they might nitpick that the system should include the entire milky way (so the earth as well as the sun rotate around the centre of the galaxy).

> Example Fact: I observed that in a sample of X smokers who smoked Y cigarettes a day, Z developed lung cancer.

> Example non-Fact: Smoking causes approximately Z rate of lung cancer.

Apart from the specific problems we have ever proving causality. both these statements are still conclusions based to varying degrees on beliefs which may be wrong. The people in the study might have lied. The cancer test might have been flawed. Ultimately the feeling of knowing a fact is an emotion. In science all we can do is be as careful as possible in stating how an experiment or study was performed and what happened. People certainly gain in their confidence of these broader statements as the evidence piles up. But from the perspective of science this reliance on beliefs created by previous studies is a form of bias which can be a bad thing.

I'm not clear on what you intend as a proposed definition, so to help get us on the right track, I'll take a few stabs at distilling down your post to what I think you might be suggesting. Is one of these close?

1. Facts are propositions that are indisputable.

2. Facts are propositions we are certain are true.

3. Facts are directly observable.

4. Facts are empirically verifiable.

Yes. For one, you don't take into account outright lying about results (which is shockingly common) - also by your definition we can never really agree on anything.

> Allowing people to "choose" to subscribe to certain things has the ability to get them and others killed.

I shouldn't be allowed to choose what I think?

> can all agree that there are certain things which are provably not facts?

In the abstract, sure, presuming your interlocutor shares a common enough epistemic framework, but good rhetoricians can craft slippery arguments.

Instead of "anthropogenic climate change is bollocks and climatologists are all paid-off liars," how about "climate change models have been shown to have errors". The first statement itself is bollocks, but that latter is true (if also misleading).

It is unlikely but possible the moon is made of cheese. Cheese is delicious on crackers. If astronauts ate moon-cheese, it would be delicious on crackers.

Certainly not every Jew would appreciate it if you argue that people need to be shielded from their opinions for their own safety.

> The bar for "this is genuinely dangerous" should be very high, though!

That is very gracious of you.

Not allowing people to subscribe to facts can also get people killed. How many had to die pointlessly before the Germ theory?

So, how would you decide on an actual action in this system?

Consensus.

Which means promoting education and intelligence is critical to having a functioning government.

...and the first rule the consensus should pass is that experts in the field should provide the consensus within their domain area. ie. Climate Scientists should decide whether Climate Change is real (as a matter of policy) - not the general public.

> ...and the first rule the consensus should pass is...

I mean you've just declared your own opinion to be the consensus.

I too can design a system of governance that works via "have a spirited debate in which every opinion is valid, then do what I say" :)

If you step off the edge of a cliff, the fact of gravity will assert its existence on you whether you choose to subscribe to it or not.

But gravity is an explanation of what we know will happen. You can believe you will fall to your death without needing to believe in gravity. Classical mechanics is enough to model the situation accurately enough but also incorrect. We don’t have a unified model either. A lot of our facts in regard to explanations of observed phenomena are much more loose. Rather they are our best explanations. Don’t confuse the map for the terrain.

I agree with your post in general but consider that accuracy and being correct is hard and takes time and consideration. This is something almost no people value when speaking in normal conversations or the equivalent online venues (Twitter, Facebook, reddit, HN, etc.). Take your post, for example, with its incorrect use of "heliocentricity". It means an astronomical model in which the Earth and planets orbit the Sun at the center of the Solar System. It is the accepted theory of planetary motion for centuries and has many different ways to be independently verified :). Not the best example of something incorrect that might be promoted with astroturfing.

> I agree with your post in general but consider that accuracy and being correct is hard and takes time and consideration

This seems like an even stronger argument for Facebook to defer to the independent fact checking rather than overruling it

Reply on news.ycombinator.com