Article I read how so many who lost an extremely vocal anti-vaxer to Covid were so angry at the schadenfreude they received on their social media. This while still not getting vaccinated. The need to be right even when your are wrong is the real virus I think.

I must confess that I laughed loudly at the mention that many this Halloween put tombstones on their lawns engraved, "I Did My Own Research." No matter how you feel about that, it is clever.

But this isn't about Covid per se, this is about the fact that more and more what I see in this country is the majority "doing their own research" and not just on medical nor even why Kylie's makeup line is better than Estee's. Opinion disguised as knowledge on Social media has turned us into the United States of Cherry Picking. It's like the whole country took a page from Mormonism. Everyone is an Apologist these days.

Well, a whole page from all Christianity was taken, actually. The Bible only works by selecting the passages that support your own agenda. Luckily it is written so that any interpretation at all will work out just fine, or at least be arguable. Let's all just concentrate on kind, loving, Jesus mostly and only pull out really angry Jesus when others aren't agreeing with is, okay?

So, what are our scriptures today? Catch phrases. They have always been powerful, catch phrases. But now that they can be volleyed around the internet like they had been backhanded by Serena, they have more power than ever. That meme you saw get's tucked in the back of your cerebellum as you think, "Yeah!" But in the end they have the same substance as when your two year old picks up a few swear words and finds they can get a fun reaction.

The two key words today for many: Me MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE.

Behavior I would not accept from a three year old. You teach them over that hump at two.

I had the opportunity to interview a prospective student for my alma mater recently. Some of the student's research interests included topics that fall under my broad range of interests, so we had plenty to talk about.

At one point in our conversation, the student enthusiastically proposed a point that seemed quite plausible on its face, but which depended on making assumptions that hadn't yet been proven. They asked me: "Wouldn't you agree that if X is true, then Y must also be true?"

Now, of course, my assent to the plausibility of what they were proposing doesn't make it any more true - and I'm sure the student would have liked me to agree and recognize their insight, but....


I paused, drew a breath, and said "not necessarily", and proceeded to explain to them that they were effectively arguing a strawman. We hadn't demonstrated X yet, and frankly neither of us seemed to sufficient knowledge to do so. So, while the conclusion Y might be nice and seem plausible, it wasn't meaningful to draw such conclusions without having even demonstrated the major premise.

The nice part about this conversation is that the student didn't get up on their high horse and reemphasize their studies or proceed to tell me that I was wrong, but instead conceded that the point wasn't yet proven and admitted that a bit of presentism might have crept into their thinking on it.

We then continued several more minutes to discuss what would need to be researched to shore up their hypothesis and it gave them new avenues to explore.


This was all a bit highfalutin to be sure, but it was really nice to talk with someone about their thoughts and opinions and not be browbeaten into having to accept their opinions as unshakable conclusions.

It was also nice to see someone who is willing to learn - to be bold about what they think, but to also recognize that it's a starting point for a discussion, and to recognize that they might not know everything a priori.

Tyson, whose interviews don't always go this way

Academic discussion and realizing "not knowing something" is your friend and a good excuse to find out more.

You remind me why as I get older what I would really like to do is go back to university and take all the classes that didn't interest me when I was young. Well, not Accounting though. Blech.

Thank Zeus for people who value logic.

They asked me: "Wouldn't you agree that if X is true, then Y must also be true?" . . .

I paused, drew a breath, and said "not necessarily", and proceeded to explain to them that they were effectively arguing a strawman. We hadn't demonstrated X yet, and frankly neither of us seemed to sufficient knowledge to do so. So, while the conclusion Y might be nice and seem plausible, it wasn't meaningful to draw such conclusions without having even demonstrated the major premise.

COMMENT: Your logic is flawed here. The proposition "If X, then Y" is perfectly meaningful without knowing whether X is true or not, so long as the inference from X to Y is valid. The fact that X is uncertain does not involve a "strawman" fallacy. A "strawman" is when someone misrepresents an argument because the substituted argument is easier to defeat.

Finally, scientists very often assume a premise X (without evidence) because they favor some conclusion Y, and believe that if they can establish X, Y will be confirmed. They thereafter seek to establish X. A noteworthy historical example is when Wolfgang Pauli postulated the neutrino (X) in order to retain conservation laws (Y) in the context of beta decay. There was no justification or evidence for assuming (X) other than as preserving (Y). Later, of course, the neutrino was discovered by Reines and Cowen.

So the short of this is that the logical path from X to Y was not straightforward either. In choosing between disputing that step which had its own weaknesses including relying upon an interpretation of the data that both appealed to emotion and which was potentially anachronistic (see the allusion to presentism) or pointing out that the major premise was unproven and trying to extend it could be a waste of time, I chose the latter.

For what it’s worth, further reading into the subject showed that X was indeed wrong. The development under consideration actually happened in an entirely different fashion, so the point was moot.

(Distinct from the incorrectness of the premise, the argument if X then Y was additionally a strawman, but that wasn’t essential to the point.)

Tyson

I knew what you meant, Tyson.

So the short of this is that the logical path from X to Y was not straightforward either.

COMMENT: Well, not to nitpick--or maybe to nitpick a little--your post started with your student's assumption and question as to whether if X were true, Y would also be true. If your answer is "not necessarily" the argument (whatever it was) is defeated at that point and one does not have to further inquire as to the truth of X, since the truth of X is inconclusive as to the truth of Y. Apparently, you were giving the student the benefit of the doubt by assuming the inference (If X then Y) while then challenging the truth of X. My point was that your statement "it wasn't meaningful to draw such conclusions (Y) without having even demonstrated the major premise (X)" was not correct as a general principle. Not only is it still meaningful to draw such conclusions, it is procedurally legitimate, because (If X, then Y) invites further inquiry as to the truth of X, when one (for whatever reason) is compelled by belief in Y.

Of course, the 'non-logical' components of emotion and data interpretation were not originally mentioned as factors.

In any event, I think when you make a point based upon logic, it is fair to hold you to the logic of your statements. Obviously, I now know that there was more than logic to this encounter, but this was not clear by your initial post. I appreciate your clarification. Perhaps it would be helpful to spell out just what X and Y related to.

I was pleased that the student was inquisitive, curious, and teachable, and that they were also clearly ready for higher education. The specific field of our discussion isn't relevant to that point.

Tyson

Tyson is a motherfucking WIZARD! HE IS A GODDAMNED WIZARD!

The school in question is NOT Hogwarts, but it can be found on the platform at the E Street Band stop if you take the A train and grab the third rail.

Good disinformation campaign there. Or is it?

Tyson, whose many of whose fellow alums sure think they’re wizards

Don't ask me how I did it.

Using only Jesus as a daring springboard to launch into a brand new life whereas (sorry heh) the fear, and guilt and shame (FGS) overly used by MormØŽ-ism needed not be applied in any way, shape or form.

All that remains is 'want' and Love and unknown to me at that particular time (amazing huh?) those two incredibly valuable motivations proved enough to help and carry me through.

That was a long long time ago.

When I was at my most Mormon, I always used Jesus for my 2 1/2 minute talks and my talks in Sunday School and finally my Mission Farewell. The glossed up cherry picked version was the only thing that made my testimony glow. The snooze of the BoM just didn't have enough raw material for me to work with--all the wars and bloodshed and cut off arms seemed to be the only way God could get his program going.

After I left Mormonism, I didn't abandon him right away and Jesus trailed me like toilet paper stuck to my shoe but in a welcome way. But in the end I found I didn't need to attach the myth of Jesus to Kindness in order to deploy it. No one has a lock on goodness.

We're beating every 150 second 'talk' MormØŽism ever might allow to grace their stuffy, stale uptight theater of conversation, I think.

Living in the cult is so so Double-Bind producing, that's for sure.

(tcojcolds-DoubleBind)

Done & Done wrote:

"Opinion disguised as knowledge on Social media has turned us into the United States of Cherry Picking."



That sums it up perfectly and in so many domains.

“Research” currently seems to be googling key words that bring up articles that support a preconceived notion.

Things would get interesting if people looked at multiple articles that present a variety of viewpoints on a topic after which one could arrive at a more informed conclusion.

Oh, but now you’re trusting an algorithm meant to ascertain what you want to read rather than what you need to read.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2021 12:16AM by Beth.

Specifically?

“Research” currently seems to be googling key words that bring up articles that support a preconceived notion.

COMMENT: Yes, that appears to be what "I did my own research" means with respect to COVID anti-vaxers. But it does not mean that an initially uninformed person cannot "do their own research" to objectively determine what the expert *consensus* is on an issue like COVID vaccinations and mask wearing. There is an important distinction between one's own research to confirm consensus expert opinion, and one's own research across the entire gamut of professional opinions, not to mention across fringe, non-expert, opinions.
__________________________________________

Things would get interesting if people looked at multiple articles that present a variety of viewpoints on a topic after which one could arrive at a more informed conclusion.

COMMENT: If you are a non-expert and are doing your own research to determine how you should act in the context of a pandemic, a "variety of viewpoints" becomes unhelpful in the context of a general expert consensus. That is because, by admission, such a person is not equipped to rationally evaluate such viewpoints as weighed against the consensus opinion. What happens is that such a person ends up 'choosing' the most favored rhetorical presentation, rather than really assessing facts and evidence. And, in this context, you could wind up dead by such an approach.

The bottom line is that all of us "non-expert" Covid watchers are intellectually and rationally 'locked-in' to the consensus expert opinion for the purpose of rational action--unless we want to spend a hell-of-a-lot of time becoming a genuine expert ourselves, which is impractical in the context of a pandemic.

Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O6zCqM0itCQ

Twice upon a time in the valley of tear
The auctioneer is bidding for a box of fading years
And the elephants are dancing on the graves of squealing mice.
Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?

And the ice creams are all melting on the streets of bloody beer
While beggars stain the pavement with fluorescent Christmas cheer
And the Bentley driving guru is putting up his price.
Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?

And the prophets in the boutiques give out messages of hope
With jingle bells and fairy tales and blind kaleidoscopes
And you can tell they're all the same underneath the pretty lies.
Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?

The yellow Buddhist monk is burning brightly at the zoo
You can bring a bowl of rice and a glass of water too
And fate is setting up the chessboard while death rolls out the dice.
Anyone for tennis, wouldn't the be nice?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2021 01:45AM by bradley.

Thanks. I love that and didn't know it. I don't know how I missed it back, well, being at the Y and not having a radio probably helped.

Those are my kind of lyrics. A blessing on you.

It's possible to be right on some points and wrong on others.

Opposition to the quagmire of the Vietnam War and the pat answers and lies of politicians was a morally valid stand to take. Taking an apparent swipe at the Beatles in the same song was probably gratuitous.

Tyson

The sum of intelligence on this planet is finite.

To be optimistic, I would say that democratization of information is a new thing. It's like China moving peasants into shiny new cities when they only know how to poop in holes.

We are still learning how to deal with this new paradigm. The old way relied on an aristocracy and platonic philosopher kings. I think in time, new but decentralized hierarchies will emerge to sort out the information marketplace.

One of the effects is the destruction of Mormonism. The great and powerful Oz isn't so impressive after you've seen behind the curtain. So everyone is questioning everything, as they should.

All culture is being re-evaluated. The pandemic showed the fear-based economy to be smoke and mirrors, so millions left their slave jobs. People are re-evaluating their obligations as citizens, coming down on one side of the vax debate or the other. These are growing pains. A better America will emerge. The only question is whether it will be a Civil War style of reconstruction.

I think it will be survivable. They're not going to allow total anarchy in a land awash in guns. But the economy must be destroyed and rebuilt if America is going to compete globally in the 21st Century. It could also be that an epic battle between good and evil is also at play. If so, evil will lose. As I said at the start of the pandemic, those who caused this evil will lose, and then they will pay. Such is the turning of the age.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2021 12:59AM by bradley.

Your post makes sense if making sense to me counts. :)

Things change and so we must adjust, or, die? Maybe.

All things considered with what is happening I would say the only hope is if a new show can be "streamed" called "River of Truth" on all devices to reach all the general public presenting both sides of an argument, and contestants must prove what they say with solid evidence in order to win the prize. However, this would not work as the losers would not accept the scientist panel of judges and would claim they knew someone who had a friend who worked for a sister of a scientist and they got the real facts from them that nobody else knows.

Soooooo..... what will likely happen is a show called "Trampoline of Truth" in which the contestants present their "various facts" and the winner is voted on by the general public to decide the most popular "truth" which is, of course, what matters.

Headline : "Lamb Takes Sheep Dewormer And Dies"

  

No passing of sacrament till the Omni Variant virus is tackled, and no more pre pubescent priests handling of the Wonderbread with their winkie unwashed wankers.

Uggg.. that ain't likely ever coming back.