
Yuval Noah Harari extract: ‘Humans are a post-truth species’ - tim333
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/aug/05/yuval-noah-harari-extract-fake-news-sapiens-homo-deus
======
DubiousPusher
This is a point I frequently try to make among my peers when the topic arises.
Right now, in the U.S. we're seeing people's information sources splintering.
With people attaching themselves to sources that conform to their worldview.
But if you go back to before the middle of the 20th century, hundreds maybe
even thousands of newspapers ruled the day. With some of the most respected
papers of our day churning out tabloid crap chaff in that time (looking at you
NYT). Many were little more than party organs.

So it's not now that's strange. It's 1950-2000, that's the weird time, where
there were a few news sources that people more or less believed in.

I'm not saying we're not losing something but we are probably returning to the
more common state of the "news".

~~~
kurthr
But then isn't it OK to blame and shame those who have engineered and
monetized the public loss? It's not just the loss of some Great Truth, but the
loss of even honest debate and collective acceptance of facts, or universal
disgust at obvious hypocrisy and lying.

Spreading disinformation for profit (and allowing trolls for clicks) is a
pollution of a public good. It's as classic an example of a Tragedy of the
Commons as any other.

Edit: I am also saddened by the loss of sarcasm and irony. Complexity must be
replaced by simplicity again.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
It's a nested epistemological problem.

It's impossible to first create a measurement system for "truth" which could
uniformly be used to judge any series of statements. Doubly so when the topics
are not mathematically rigorous in nature.

On top of that, it's a major challenge to determine intention - eg. was the
author of a piece of "fake news" duped, were they being malicious, is there a
self-serving bias or is the author simply incompetent?

Third, what is the economic and political environment that the author resides
inside? Does the author have a choice of what to write unencumbered or is
there a economic or political system which is unreasonably burdensome that
they have to hew to?

So it's not so simple to just assume that there is a unipolar evaluation that
can be done when evaluating communications/persuasion/propaganda.

------
everdev
> The higher cause that allegedly justified the invasion of Ukraine was the
> preservation of the sacred Russian nation.

I'm sure there were many reasons, but the one I heard was that Russia said it
was committed to defending Russian speaking populations wherever they are and
said that the Russian speaking population in Ukraine was being discriminated
against it repressed in some fashion.

Regardless of the primary reason, it seems these issues are more complex than
a single primary motivating factor.

For example, why Crimea and not all of Ukraine? Why Ukraine and not another
ex-Soviet satellite? Why now? Why not earlier?

I'm sure there were lies and disinformation, but I also think the issue is
more complex than the author might be suggesting.

~~~
pharrington
The Crimean peninsula specifically provides direct access to the Black Sea,
and in turn humongous economic and military access to southeastern Europe and
Turkey.

~~~
dogma1138
Russia has direct access to the Black Sea regardless, Crimea provides them an
existing port they don’t want to give up.

------
silveira
Very hyped author. I read Sapiens and despite very interesting points at the
beginning and at the end of the book regarding things nobody can prove or
disprove now, the bulk of the book is very week. A long logical juggling to
praise a lot aggressions and mistakes because "hey, it could have been worst".

------
alexandercrohde
tl; dr:

1\. States that there is a common modern fear that this is a moment of
unprecedented ignorance of reality (i.e. people worry about "post-truth")

2\. Counters this premise by reviewing the history of very wide-reaching and
fundamental political lies providing examples including Russian, Japanese,
Chinese, and Israeli.

3\. Cites the historical adherence to religion as another counterexample.
States that people find value in guiding "myths" even if not fact. Likens
Harry Potter to the Bible.

4\. Quotes Hitler and Goebbles on how effective propaganda/lies are to get
people to believe in a common cause.

5\. Extends the point, by likening modern advertising to such lies/myths.

6\. Examines whether the inherent value of currency can be seen as such a
myth. Though of practical value at first, some grow to see it as an ends in
and of itself.

7\. Suggests sports is another form of myth.

8\. Proposes an inherent conflict between honesty and holding power.

9\. Clarifies that despite the history of myth and inevitably of dishonesty,
that there is still value in differentiating truth from lie.

10\. Proposes that for free news sources, one should be skeptical of the
motives of those providing that information.

------
hodgesrm
Another way of stating the article thesis that adherence to scientific method
is more fragile than many people think. Scientific inquiry in most fields is
driven by a relatively small number of people. It's easy to see from current
debates on vaccines, climate change, and evolution how quickly their results
can be ignored.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
This was effectively the argument of Paul Feyerabend in his book Against
Method, which posits that there is an Epistemological Anarchism in the
sciences broadly.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend)

[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism)

~~~
hodgesrm
Interesting. This is the first time I have heard the name. Based on the
Wikipedia articles you cited I'm not sure I agree with his criticisms of
scientific method.

It's not so much that there are alternative methods of achieving knowledge but
that scientific theories with robust experimental confirmation and obvious
utility can simply be shouted down by people who have political or economic
reasons for not accepting them.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
That's a rather shallow interpretation of his critique and doesn't give proper
due to the depth of his argument.

It also misrepresents his argument about "achieving knowledge" \- which isn't
something he argues - rather, that such a concept of coming to some
foundational conclusion is actually mythology. It's subtle but important.

~~~
hodgesrm
Since you have read his work, perhaps you could explain how his critique
explains things like the anti-vaccination movement? This seems to be a case
where scientific success has been sufficiently complete that people forget
what it was like before. If enough people stop vaccinating, serious diseases
pop back up again.

p.s., I'm not arguing that scientific theories are correct in some absolute
sense, only that they have proven utility like being able to guide moon
missions.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
Anti-Vaxxer arguments don't relate at all to his critique and your suggestion
is a red herring unfortunately.

I think the challenge when it comes to having discussions about philosophy of
science with people who aren't rigorous or academic about philosophy, is that
it can easily be interpreted as anti-science.

Feyerabend specifically was unnecessarily harsh with his critique, and
somewhat of an outsider, so he attracted more vitriol than was likely
warranted.

His point about the lack of universal methodological rules across the
disciplines of science is a fair critique, which is a statement about
scientism at large and the dogmas that form inside of it being insidious. It
was decidedly NOT a critique of any particular method or function of science.
To the contrary, his point was that Science is too important to try and
enforce one methodology where it is incompatible - and would be corrupting.

~~~
hodgesrm
Thanks, your last paragraph is a nice summary.

------
based2
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology)

------
_cs2017_
According to the author, humans need fiction to unite, and therefore
persuasive fiction is far more powerful and successful than truth. So far so
good.

But then the author makes one mistake after another.

First, he conflates the use of currency with fiction. Currency doesn't need
fiction to function, it can be survive even if every human was completely
rational and couldn't be tricked with fiction. That's because the mechanism
that gives currency its value is game theoretic equilibrium / focal point.

Then he starts complaining that bad guys use fiction. Come on man, you just
explained that humans are inherently wired to follow fiction, so why are you
blaming people for using it?

The author also goes into political and moral arguments and starts taking
sides. Given that both sides of any conflict use fiction, this seems out of
place.

Finally the author encourages people to read scientific literature, without
explaining how to identify the rare thoughtful writing among the tons of
fiction that academics write. Academics, after all, aren't stupid, and also
follow the approach of writing fiction into their papers to make their work
more impressive to the outside world and more appealing to journal editors.

Overall, I'm very disappointed since the topic is important and deserves a
better treatment.

~~~
crazygringo
The author is disappointing, particularly given his recent extreme popularity.
His entire book _Sapiens_ basically harps on the theme that human institutions
are all "shared fictions", completely ignoring any kind of structural/economic
reasons for existing. It's as if he thinks that how supply/demand affect
prices is a "fiction" we invented and are free to un-invent if we so chose,
rather than a reliable explanation of human behavior.

I just can't seem to find any real analytical or explanatory value in anything
he's written thus far.

~~~
_cs2017_
Precisely.

It puzzles me how an educated person from the late 20th - early 21st century,
who spends all his time learning and writing, can utterly fail to understand
the structural and economic mechanisms of the modern world.

~~~
loa-in-backup
I am keen to treat this the same as ommiting technical details of trebuchets
in a book about some Lord siegeing another Lord's castle - it's not the point,
and if one really gets inspired to know, he must search on his own.

