
Misinformation Is About Who You Trust, Not What You Think - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/69/patterns/why-misinformation-is-about-who-you-trust-not-what-you-think
======
jawns
"Maybe we should have something like a ministry of information to decide
what's true."

I am hoping that this was meant in jest.

But if you look at some of the other comments in the article -- science should
be funded through the government, industries that would otherwise contribute
to scientific research should instead be taxed -- I'm not so sure how un-Big
Brotherish these authors are.

(Yes, obviously, the government already funds a good deal of science, but it
sounds as if they're arguing that science funding should all be funneled
through the government.)

~~~
oytis
Historically philosophers were often at odds with the idea of democracy. Once
you discover what is true and what is false, it is very frustrating to have to
deal with people who are not as smart as you are.

Modern philosophers are mostly pro-democratic for a number of reasons. They
have to invent mental tricks to make democracy compatible with what they think
is right. "Ministry of information" or separating voting (based on values)
from decision making (based on facts) are examples of such tricks.

IMO, if we value democracy, we'll have to agree that decisions taken
democratically will sometimes be wrong. The only way to fix that without
compromising the democracy, is to raise the level of an average citizen's
education.

~~~
ChrisSD
Education isn't a cure all. Highly educated citizens can still be wrong en
masse.

~~~
oytis
Well, if our education doesn't help people to be less wrong, then we need to
improve it (that's what I mean by raising level of education, not just giving
people diplomas). Or reconsider what we think is wrong.

------
travisoneill1
Why do I keep seeing this formula?

1\. Points out a problem that is fundamentally rooted in human psychology.

2\. Proposes that the solution is to have the government take it over.

~~~
whatshisface
To play dictator's advocate, that's the story of how civilization overcame
stealing and homicide.

More seriously, all problems are rooted in human psychology because technology
is now good enough for us to live in a utopia if we could only manage to stop
turning it against ourselves. So, really that pattern is just proposing that
the government take something over, you get the first step for free.

~~~
sverige
The problem is that "the government" is made up of people who have the same
problems rooted in human psychology, and those people are a subset of the
general population self-selected for the specific problem of wanting to tell
others what to do.

I'm more inclined to agree with the aphorism that government is the problem,
not the solution.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Humans are not angels.

We need government precisely because humans are not angels. We need someone to
restrain human tendencies toward violence, toward fraud, and so on.

But as you point out, the government isn't composed of angels, either. So we
need the government to restrain the people, _but we also need to restrain the
government_.

------
whytaka
The Philosophy program at my alma mater focused heavily on Epistemology.
Earlier on in the program I was more interested in Metaphysics and the word
games that allowed for topics like the argument for God. But nearing the end
I’d come to appreciate that epistemology is the root of all Philosophy. One
cannot make any claims on objecthood, on morality, on logic, without at least
furnishing their argument with a justification for how they think they know.

Epistemology is sorely lacking in public discourse. We should seek to nurture
a healthy skepticism as the first impulse in all public debate.

~~~
mistermann
> I’d come to appreciate that epistemology is the root of all Philosophy

I'd say most of the societal disagreements we're having right now are largely
rooted in epistemology as well. Rarely are low level details discussed, and
rarely is the truth of the "facts" scrutinized or examined at a level where we
could gain some genuine confidence that what _the general public, politicians,
and & news media_ thinks & repeats is true, is actually true.

------
gdubs
The general public has become disconnected from science. Even educated,
intelligent, people get science through opinion pieces _about_ the science, or
worse yet (and more commonly?) through a headline alone.

When I think about my own kids, what I want them to get more than anything
else is an ability to think critically, and scientifically. People are people,
and we’ll always fall prey to emotional appeals and distraction, but critical
thinking and the scientific method are our way out of the fog.

The other aspect is compartmentalization of science, and general information
overload. It’s hard to keep up with every new study, and it’s hard to reach a
deep level of understanding across such a wide array of scientific
disciplines. It is why we rely on experts.

We’re in a crisis due to lack of trust in the experts. Part of it is because
we’ve become so removed from science we don’t know who trust. The other part
is that industry has become quite effective at manipulating experts to work in
their interests, eroding trust.

The simple fix? I have no idea. The long view? We need to raise a generation
of kids who know how to apply the scientific method, think critically, and
filter through the ever growing mountain of information we’re bombarded with
on a daily basis.

------
sandwall
Decent article and probably a good book (that will only be read by those who
need it least).

However, this idea is terrible:

O’Connor: Maybe we should have something like a ministry of information to
decide what’s true.

~~~
xiphias2
I would love to see a Reddit/HN clone where it matters which people I
personally vote up. I know it gets me closer to a bubble, but I don't care
about that Twitter is somewhat good for this, but it's the opposite end: not
diverse enough for me to get enough content.

------
specialist
The remedy to "fake news" is to restore context.

We've long known that believability is rooted in the esteem we hold for the
messenger. The art of persuasion, sales, rhetoric, diplomacy, courtship, etc.

What's new is understanding the role of context, or the lack of it.

Someone recently pointed out the virality of twitter (at the extreme) is
enabled by the lack of context.

Use web of trust and digital signatures to add citations and ownership
(copyright) to every tweet, post, image, video. Then you know precisely who
said what. And if you really care about "the truth", you can follow the chain
of citations back to the original source and data.

------
iambateman
Misinformation on an individual basis isn’t often harmful.

There are millions of demonstrably-false ideas floating around. I live 30
miles from an Alien Welcome Center...a place devoted to welcoming aliens when
they appear.

The problem is when fringe ideas become weaponised into culture at large.

This article seems to focus more on the individual cases of misinformation
rather than the more general social problem - finding ways to fight remarkable
falsehood with dull truth.

------
magwa101
Great article. I've always wondered about the respect people show for other's
"belefs" in religion. Obviously no one knows what happens after death, and
religion spends a lot of time preparing your "beliefs" for the inevitable. I
get that. But then religions slip in a whole bunch of other shit and that
becomes the religious "package" of unassailable "beliefs". It's very insidious
and pretty much everyone falls for the line "Well those are my beliefs".

------
oytis
> The thing we suggest, though who knows how you implement this, is having
> people vote on the things they value.

What if people's values depend on what they think is true?

------
porpoisely
If so, why should we trust married philosophers from UC Irvine ( a highly
politically biased institution )? In the article, they themselves say that an
ideologically heterogeneous set of people produce higher quality articles.
Wouldn't that also apply to books - especially about misinformation?

"There was a recent study of Wikipedia that showed the most accurate and high
quality articles were produced by an ideologically heterogeneous, diverse set
of editors and writers. Does that square with your findings?"

I don't watch cable news, but something tells me that the example of a
princeton grad on foxnews not believing in germs is distorted or misconstrued.
What's the context there? Was it in the context of "you don't have to use
anti-bacterial soap" or did the guy truly say he doesn't believe in germs. It
would have been great if author provided a link to the video so we can see the
context.

O’Connor: "I’ve been worried about climate change since I was 5 years old, and
here we are 30 years later and still not doing anything about it."

I think there is climate change ( with or without ) humans, but something
tells me this "philosopher" isn't an unbiased thinker or writer. Especially if
one was obsessed with this since they were 5 years old. What kid worries about
climate change as a kindegartner. Makes me question this person's upbringing.

\-- How should science be funded?

"Through the government or some kind of body held to very high standards of
not being influenced by industry."

Because governments are infallible? Because governments ( nazi germany, soviet
union, china, japan, US, etc ) have such amazing track records? Even if we
accept governments are infallible, how are we going to keep industry from
influencing government? This is the problem with academics who have never
worked and have worried about climate change since they were 5 years old. They
know nothing of the real world.

\-- What are the best tools for good information?

"Maybe we should have something like a ministry of information to decide
what’s true."

Normally, I'd assume the person is joking, but the sad thing is you can't
really tell from an academic working in UC Irvine.

So much of the "mis/dis" information rhetoric is "mis/dis" information
themselves. As philosophers, you'd think they would say teach the kids logic,
reason and history rather than "joking" about ministry of information.

~~~
pjc50
Germs thing: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2019/02/11/why-fox-
new...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2019/02/11/why-fox-news-pete-
hegseth-hasnt-washed-his-hands-in-10-years/#75bc689a1238)

~~~
porpoisely
Thanks. I can't believe the guy actually believes that. I guess if
hypochondriacs exist, their opposites must exist too.

~~~
pjc50
Oh, it doesn't matter what he believes in his heart; and he's probably lying
as well and regularly washes his hands. What's more interesting is the
question of why he'd want to say this on TV. But it all adds to the culture
war, doesn't it?

~~~
arethuza
I wonder if he would be unhappy if a surgeon operated on him without washing
their hands?

~~~
ben_w
Given how surgeons responded to the first person to demonstrate that surgeons
washing their hands significantly reduced patient mortality, I would be
unsurprised if he _insisted_ on them not washing their hands.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis)

~~~
AstralStorm
Short version: people like theories more than data. Theories provide for
compartmentalization and when no theory is offered, reproducible data is often
ignored.

Killing the messenger with bad news has a long tradition. Especially if it's
bad news for everyone.

