Any data you, yourself didn't collect has to be suspect. With the replication issues and outright fraud proving many studies aren't what they purport to be. Also with the AI fake photos and I'm sure videos getting better what can be trusted. Even if say you could talk to Putin or Zalenskky, how do you know they aren't lying to you? If you could perform your own blind random trial, how do you know your biases didn't lead you to set up the experiment in a way that leads to your desired conclusion? And that would be if you had access and ability to get your own facts, but "ain't nobody got time for that".
Somewhere I saw "it's not what you believe, it's who you believe" and as bad as things are now, everything is going to get even more tribal.
I think knowing what you don't know, you don't fill in the box with a single number, but have a few candidates and learn to operate in an environment of uncertainty. It's pretty easy to eliminate possibilities over time -- "the vaccine stops the spread" can be eliminated, as can "it'll be a winter of death for the unvaccinated." Moreover, you can eliminate people pushing those falsehoods from consideration. To the extent AI obfuscates, we'll find other ways of verification.
"The best we can do, in my opinion, is via the scientific method, offering a hypothesis that purports to fit the facts, and scrapping it as new facts and better-fitting (more explanatory) hypotheses come along."
Exactly right. What seems true today can appear false tomorrow (and then maybe truer again later!) depending on how evidence mounts (or not) over time. Either way, we need to remain humble and open-minded to the shifting sands.
I like the example you give about why anyone should believe the Putler narrative because the NYT tells us this is true. If anything, if the NYT (and similar such MSM outlets) want readers to believe Putin's plan has always been an imperial one, i.e. invade Europe after his "unprovoked aggression" in Ukraine, then we can feel reasonably secure in believing the opposite is much closer to the truth. After all, NYT are PROVEN liars.
How often in life do we trust proven liars be they among family, friends or acquaintances to be reliable sources of truth/information? No matter how trusting a nature one might possess, only fools do that.
Do you fear it's only going to get worse?
Any data you, yourself didn't collect has to be suspect. With the replication issues and outright fraud proving many studies aren't what they purport to be. Also with the AI fake photos and I'm sure videos getting better what can be trusted. Even if say you could talk to Putin or Zalenskky, how do you know they aren't lying to you? If you could perform your own blind random trial, how do you know your biases didn't lead you to set up the experiment in a way that leads to your desired conclusion? And that would be if you had access and ability to get your own facts, but "ain't nobody got time for that".
Somewhere I saw "it's not what you believe, it's who you believe" and as bad as things are now, everything is going to get even more tribal.
I think knowing what you don't know, you don't fill in the box with a single number, but have a few candidates and learn to operate in an environment of uncertainty. It's pretty easy to eliminate possibilities over time -- "the vaccine stops the spread" can be eliminated, as can "it'll be a winter of death for the unvaccinated." Moreover, you can eliminate people pushing those falsehoods from consideration. To the extent AI obfuscates, we'll find other ways of verification.
"The best we can do, in my opinion, is via the scientific method, offering a hypothesis that purports to fit the facts, and scrapping it as new facts and better-fitting (more explanatory) hypotheses come along."
Exactly right. What seems true today can appear false tomorrow (and then maybe truer again later!) depending on how evidence mounts (or not) over time. Either way, we need to remain humble and open-minded to the shifting sands.
I like the example you give about why anyone should believe the Putler narrative because the NYT tells us this is true. If anything, if the NYT (and similar such MSM outlets) want readers to believe Putin's plan has always been an imperial one, i.e. invade Europe after his "unprovoked aggression" in Ukraine, then we can feel reasonably secure in believing the opposite is much closer to the truth. After all, NYT are PROVEN liars.
How often in life do we trust proven liars be they among family, friends or acquaintances to be reliable sources of truth/information? No matter how trusting a nature one might possess, only fools do that.
Fantastic analogy!
Thanks Tony!