SALMAN RUSHDIE says TRUMP MODI & BREXIT are PRODUCTS of DAMAGED TRUTH

That out there, on the Web now, truth and untruth exist at the same level of authority and I think it's very difficult sometimes for people to judge which is which.

Idéfix wrote:

That out there, on the Web now, truth and untruth exist at the same level of authority and I think it's very difficult sometimes for people to judge which is which.

This is the crux of it. I am reminded of the back and forth I had on CH about a probability problem several years ago.

The demise of institutional authority over the truth seems inevitable. People don't really believe experts, governments, the media, or the elites any more. People believe what they want to believe, and the platforms that seem to be winning are the ones that explicitly cater to our biases. Platforms that use algorithms to detect your biases and show articles that confirm your biases do better than platforms that present a broad range of opinion. The real fascinating question for me is whether this is a new phenomenon, or a return to how the world used to be before the printing press and then radio and TV centralized the means of information dissemination and thereby created institutions with authority over the truth.

Idéfix wrote:

That out there, on the Web now, truth and untruth exist at the same level of authority and I think it's very difficult sometimes for people to judge which is which.

This is the crux of it. I am reminded of the back and forth I had on CH about a probability problem several years ago.

The demise of institutional authority over the truth seems inevitable. People don't really believe experts, governments, the media, or the elites any more. People believe what they want to believe, and the platforms that seem to be winning are the ones that explicitly cater to our biases. Platforms that use algorithms to detect your biases and show articles that confirm your biases do better than platforms that present a broad range of opinion. The real fascinating question for me is whether this is a new phenomenon, or a return to how the world used to be before the printing press and then radio and TV centralized the means of information dissemination and thereby created institutions with authority over the truth.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

That out there, on the Web now, truth and untruth exist at the same level of authority and I think it's very difficult sometimes for people to judge which is which.

This is the crux of it. I am reminded of the back and forth I had on CH about a probability problem several years ago.

The demise of institutional authority over the truth seems inevitable. People don't really believe experts, governments, the media, or the elites any more. People believe what they want to believe, and the platforms that seem to be winning are the ones that explicitly cater to our biases. Platforms that use algorithms to detect your biases and show articles that confirm your biases do better than platforms that present a broad range of opinion. The real fascinating question for me is whether this is a new phenomenon, or a return to how the world used to be before the printing press and then radio and TV centralized the means of information dissemination and thereby created institutions with authority over the truth.

Good observation but the problem isn’t that simple. Truth is a buzzword and if used in an absolute sense, becomes dogma. Russell has the proper advice – gather as much info as possible, test and analyze rigorously and accept as temporary truth with an attitude that you will revise conclusions based on new knowledge.

Social science heavily depends on statistical analyses and incomplete data. Information in this arena can’t be of high quality unless society evolves and embraces rational ways. You can’t deny that Trump is the elected president. Obviously, there are enough people in society that are comfortable with the likes of Trump. His election reflects where society is now! So, a lot of work is needed in social sciences to educate people and to create ways to uplift society….. 

Society can’t transform overnight. Good change usually comes slow so that people have time to digest and incorporate into their core thinking. If enough people insist on the quality of evidence rather than on “truth”, society will have a chance to become more mature. … 


More harm is done through the “dictatorship of proletariat” and “the last prophet” & “power runs through the barrel of the gun” approaches…..  

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
....More harm is done through the “dictatorship of proletariat” and “the last prophet” & “power runs through the barrel of the gun” approaches….

garam_kuta wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
....More harm is done through the “dictatorship of proletariat” and “the last prophet” & “power runs through the barrel of the gun” approaches….

Given the glorification of war and its power from time immemorial, I never cease to amaze at the evolution and sustenance of the Buddhist period in human history, and it's brief resurgence in gandhi's time.

Idéfix wrote:I agree with all that. Trump got elected because there are more than 60 million people who came out and voted for him. So it is very clear that a lot of Americans are quite comfortable with his ideas and actions.

The thing I find fascinating is this: in the last few years, there have been many instances of utter disregard for the truth. Here are a few examples:

1. A good percentage of Americans believed in 2015 that WMDs were found in Iraq.
2. When the president said that he had the biggest electoral college win since Reagan, that was an objectively false statement, but one that his supporters are cool with.
3. Many educated people in India still believe that there is a "GPS chip" in the new 2,000 rupee note.

There is easily accessible, reliable evidence to disprove these beliefs. But the beliefs themselves persist. It is possible to take the policy positions that Trump takes, but without the egregious, easy-to-verify lying. Yet he lies rather brazenly, and his supporters actually like that sort of thing. They like that lying style over the less-deceitful style of conservative alternatives. I find that really fascinating.

Idéfix wrote:On Buddhism... I don't think historically Buddhism as an organized religion was particularly opposed to war. Buddhist kings routinely made war on their neighbors, in both offensive and defensive situations. I remember reading about a Buddhist chronicle that said thousands of Jainas were killed by Ashoka for the offense of disrespecting the Buddha. That's not the Jainas complaining that Ashoka persecuted them due to religious differences, that's the Buddhists saying Ashoka did so!

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Idéfix wrote:On Buddhism... I don't think historically Buddhism as an organized religion was particularly opposed to war. Buddhist kings routinely made war on their neighbors, in both offensive and defensive situations. I remember reading about a Buddhist chronicle that said thousands of Jainas were killed by Ashoka for the offense of disrespecting the Buddha. That's not the Jainas complaining that Ashoka persecuted them due to religious differences, that's the Buddhists saying Ashoka did so!

Yes, Sanjeev Sanyal talked about Asoka, the pieceful Buddhist. In his view, we have a skewed view of Asoka. He also talked about many important kingdoms of the South (Krishnadevaraya, Satavahanas, Martanda Varma, the Cholas, etc.) that are not properly shown in Indian history text books....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSk3fvcmd9U