
Reading in the Dark: Does fiction matter in a post-fact age? - diodorus
https://harpers.org/archive/2018/02/reading-in-the-dark/?single=1
======
ineedasername
We're not in a post-fact age. We're simply at a time where people are more
aware that a given subset of facts can support a narrative the conflicts with
the narrative of another subset. Similar to unifying theories in science, we
just need to always look for explanations that encompass more facts. Not throw
our hands in the air and say, "This is too hard! There are no more facts, only
narrative!"

That sort of epistemological nihilism isn't really supported by the facts :)

~~~
ForRealsies
For elaboration on how cognitive bias causes people to interpret the facts in
different ways, I always recommend:

[http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/08/17/how-to-know-youre-in-a-
ma...](http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/08/17/how-to-know-youre-in-a-mass-
hysteria-bubble/)

~~~
kbenson
It saddens my that Adams blog has devolved into this. While this post has some
good points, he hitches it to a partisan wagon so strongly that it's hard to
take without feeling like the _whole point_ is to try to persuade you _instead
of_ educate you, which makes it feel kind of gross.

The rest of the blog is some mix of how to persuade people (including a
reading list for help on that, with his own book included), and more opining
on current political events.

~~~
reificator
It's also leaked into a few of the comic strips in kind of a "gotcha" way.

Sorry Scott Adams, you didn't "get me". I get where you're coming from, but I
disagree. That's not the same thing.

An example where he "gets you" by assuming that if you disagree you must have
missed a word- no one could have disagreed if they truly understood his
message:

[http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/06/03/an-example-of-
cognitive-d...](http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/06/03/an-example-of-cognitive-
dissonance/)

~~~
kbenson
Ugh. The comic is fine, and highlights some of the over-vilification the left
is known for, but the explanation for what it means is pretty extreme, and
actually exhibits the same behavior he's calling out.

I continue to be unclear if he's playing some long con and these are just the
easter eggs for the people that see it. Otherwise he's pretty self-unaware, to
a frightening degree.

------
benjohnson
Fiction matters - it's good fun. Even if we're just now aware that we're
swimming in a sea of fiction.

The only thing that's changed recently is that we're now just more capable of
being aware how much bad reporting and government tomfoolery is going on - we
always been lied to.

~~~
croon
> The only thing that's changed recently is that we're now just more capable
> of being aware how much bad reporting and government tomfoolery is going on
> - we always been lied to.

We're post-fact for the specific reason that that statement is both true _and_
utterly false.

Whatever mess we're currently in, it's explicitly _because_ we (collectively)
weren't capable enough of being aware of bad reporting, and while it's gotten
louder this last year, I'm not sure we've gotten better at it.

------
irrational
I was thinking about this recently. I already knew from personal experience 25
years ago that I couldn’t trust what is reported in the news (if I know that
they lie about things I personally know the facts about, how can I trust them
on everything I do not know the facts about?)

It seems like every time there is a report about a science discovery, people
jump out of the woodwork to complain about the state of science reporting and
how the science news is wrong and misleading. I do not have the background to
read and understand scientific journals to find out the truth, and it probably
wouldn’t matter if I did. There are stories about fake articles being accepted
and published by reputable journals all the time.

The recent revelation of deep porn shows that someone like myself, without the
skills to analyze videos to know if they are fake or not, has to assume that
all videos are fake. The same applies to images, audio, and other media.

When I can trust no text, video, audio, images, etc. to not have been
manipulated and to have no reputable authority that I can trust to help me to
distinguish between truth and fiction I am left adrift having to assume that
everything I do not personally experience is false (and even then I know that
human memory is flawed and no two people experience the same event in the same
way - so I cannot even trust myself).

This seems like a rather nihilistic and cynical viewpoint, but knowing that I
cannot trust anything is actually rather liberating and fills me with
optimism. I cannot trust the bad or the good things that are reported.

------
soneca
Does news matter?

[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews](http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews)

~~~
lucozade
Yes, and largely for the arguments that he concedes. The fact that a
substantial fraction of news is gossip and speculation just means that not
everything on a news outlet is news. In the same way that not everything done
by scientist is science or everything done by an artist is art.

~~~
soneca
Everything published by a scientist in a paper should be science. Everything
presented by an artist in an exposition should be art.

Everything published in a newspaper (and presented as news) should be news.

I am much more inclined to consider news a form of entertainment nowadays. And
I am not even talking about fake news.

------
booleandilemma
We are not in a “post-fact age”, no matter how much some people want us to
believe we are.

What does that even mean anyway?

It’s just as bad as the term “fake news”.

~~~
kadenshep
"I'm right no matter what everyone else says!"

Kind of the defining problem of this topic.

------
tw1010
I have a hard time imagining any other conclusion than that a person who
genuinely, confidently, takes the whole "post-fact" idea seriously is someone
who doesn't think enough about the things that are coming out of their mouth.

------
programminggeek
Fiction has always existed in a "post-fact age" (whatever that is). Nothing
has changed but our awareness of our own absurdity.

------
agumonkey
I'd say even more than ever. Knowing all is not that interesting past some
point. Imagination keeps providing pleasure.

~~~
Koshkin
Sounds pretty much like what one could say about sex.

------
nsxwolf
We are not in a post-fact age. A certain someone who is on TV and Twitter a
lot who you don't like tells lies and half truths. Like people always have.
This person is just more brazen about it, and you really, really don't like
this person.

You still live in a world with facts. If you get charged for a pound of lunch
meat at the deli but are given half a pound, you complain and this gets
straightened out. Most delis won't assert that we now live in a post-fact
world and thus your half pound is really a pound.

If you make up your own facts at work, you're not likely going to keep your
job very long.

You still live in reality. The world is not spinning out of control.
Everything is going to be OK.

~~~
rhacker
lol, no, they will tell you they can't weigh it because you already touched
it, and that would contaminate their kitchen and therefore there is no way for
them to give you a refund or straighten it out... while this specific
situation hasn't happened to me, very eerily similar situations have.

~~~
nsxwolf
Have you ever been grocery shopping? Are you from the US? The national chains
are pretty liberal about accepting returns and customer service in general.

------
pjc50
It looks like everyone's reacting to the title rather than any of the content
of the article?

~~~
lucozade
In fairness, the article is quite a sneering review of a book by a professor
who, I'm guessing, was disappointed with the advance he was offered and so
went on a bit of an anti-literature venting.

It was a vaguely amusing read. Could have done without the Trump-ety bit that
seemed to be a ranty digression.

But I can't really say I was enlightened in any particular way. I mean,
literature professor thinks most people are Philistines, shocker.

~~~
voidhorse
Seconded. Aside from some nicely crafted sentences I found this review only
offered a surface-level critique of a book on literary theory, snide
summations of said book, and a forced element of personal reflection on
reading in the context of our current zeitgeist. Excellent writing. Poor
criticism. The author's critical position is also very transparent and does
not seem very nuanced (reader-centric, drawing on and abiding by much of the
wealth of work in reader-response criticism without qualifying any of their
major tenets). I tend to formalism myself, so I am always harder to sway
toward these arguments that desire to transform literature into a privileged
instrument of self-definition and morality--you cannot deny that literature
has roots in those realms, but those dynamics have shifted, which judging by
the cursory glance we're given at the work in this review, was precisely
Marx's point.

