Ask HN: What important truth do very few (informed) people agree with you on? - arikr
======
wayn3
Its conceptually impossible to disagree with a hard truth if you are informed
about it.

~~~
arikr
What? I completely disagree. Unless you and I have different definitions of
"informed". My definition of informed is that the person feels they are
informed, and they have sought out all the information they can.

Therefore, with that definition, it's entirely possible for two humans to look
at the same information, and draw two different conclusions (perhaps because
they filter the information according to their pre-existing beliefs, perhaps
for other reasons), and therefore disagree on a hard truth. e.g. Climate
change.

~~~
wayn3
By hard truth I mean absolute truth. Facts. 2+2 = 4. If you understand all the
rules that go into addition, there's no way for you to arrive at another
conclusion.

Another example:

The earth is not flat. If you spend any amount of time studying just one of
the many reasons why it can't be flat, you will have to agree.

Climate Change is not something we can know for sure. "Climate change" itself
is not very well defined. Do you mean man-made climate change? Do you mean
global warming? What exactly do you mean? You can, of course, draw different
conclusions because its not well specified.

Out of that complex of issues, one good example would be the ozone hole. It's
pretty clear that in the 70s we ejected a class of chemical substances (FCKW
etc.) into the atmosphere that messed with the ozone layer. That's provable.
If you study the facts, you have to agree.

Likewise, you have to agree that the human race has contributed to an increase
in carbon oxides in the atmosphere.

All hard truths.

Then you have truths that we do not have direct evidence for but can verify
conceptually - like this one:

"The universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time". How can we
know?

Hawking makes the following argument: "Had the universe existed for an
infinite amount of time, it would have had an infinite amount of time to
achieve thermodynamic equilibrium. But it is obviously not in equilibrium (us
being able to observe it necessitates it not being in equilibrium); therefore,
it must be finite"

You can not possibly find a counterargument to that.

I differentiate between absolute truth and "what we know". We can be wrong
about things because we have access to a limited amount of knowledge, but that
doesn't change truth.

Faster than light travel is either possible or it is not. We don't know. But
that doesn't make the truth any less deterministic.

~~~
arikr
Ah, I see what you mean. I did not correctly interpret your use of "hard
truth".

I agree with your comment.

That said, I don't believe it is relevant if my/your/someone's goal is to
learn about the world to create things/etc. Many (most?) of the things I know
that are useful are not absolute truths, they are just hypotheses.

------
falloutx
Strong AI cannot be achieved, atleast not with current tech. AND If We get
them, Strongly intelligent machines will be totally useless.

Suppose you could make an (strongly) Intelligent machine, and tell to analyze
some data, it can just say "Fuck no, you're not a boss of me now!".

------
exolymph
"Elitism" is a way to rebrand not countenancing idiots.

~~~
hacknat
I'm with you on this (especially because if this election).

------
Mz
People with Cystic Fibrosis are not "drowning in their own mucus." They
underproduce mucus, not overproduce it. They are drowning in phlegm.

~~~
paulcole
drowning in mucus vs. drowning in phlegm

is still drowning isn't it? pretty pedantic.

~~~
Mz
No, it's really not. It is a major key to solving it. Not "The" key, because
there are a few pieces to the puzzle. But it is a really major detail.

~~~
paulcole
> It is a major key to solving it

The average person is not solving it. And the average person isn't going to
go, "oh it's phlegm, I only donate to mucus-related causes"?

------
Raed667
The causes and consiquences of the Arab spring

~~~
partisan
Explain.

------
PerfectElement
Sentient animals should not be treated as commodities.

~~~
ud0
What's an example of a sentient animal?

~~~
arnold_palmur
as an example, my guess would be a pig?

------
soulchild37
I saw this question from Zero to One written by Peter Thiel. Nice one.

------
happycodeworks
short:
[https://i.redd.it/tqiydv3ymchx.jpg](https://i.redd.it/tqiydv3ymchx.jpg)

long:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/gangstalkingmkultra/comments/4fb98a...](https://www.reddit.com/r/gangstalkingmkultra/comments/4fb98a/science_lies_relevant_to_mind_control/)

