Is Dawkins Misinformation?

:), that happens in India too…

Edit: That is not an institutional problem however. The system makes space for expert advise… thats important.

1 Like

If those advisors aren’t being listened to, it should be easy to see why scientists get frustrated.

1 Like

Congratulations. We hope to dispose of him soon, though not soon enough.

4 Likes

It is. However, that’s how democracies work.
People have the right to self determination which is exercised by voting for whoever’s gets to be in charge.

Getting frustrated is fine as long as no one feels entitled to power. The President, or prime minister/elected representatives are there precisely to make these calls.
If they ignore experts, and it turns out to have negative consequences, I expect people would vote them out.

If they dont… that’s also within their rights.

Yes, you have a similar problem.

Yes… I didn’t vote for the ruling party either .:slight_smile:

But that’s what democracy is about. We need to acknowledge that people have a right to self determination

Except if scientists want their voices to be heard, right? Then you question their motives and imply that they’re power-hungry.

1 Like

Of course not… In fact, i would insist that experts be given platforms to advise the government on relevant topics.

I would question a groups motives only if they want to squash other peoples right to free speech (even to say stupid things) for example by demanding strict policing of social media or outright banns.

Do you really think scientists are struggling to have their voices heard?

Actually scientists have a very strong voice in the western world. In India, they are a little weaker, though they are still respected and have official bodies through which they can advise the Government.

You ask this question right after we discussed how scientists are being ignored on the question of how best to tackle the current pandemic. The answer is obviously yes. Free speech does not extend to spreading harmful misinformation - no one is free to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre. Of course, any attempts to combat misinformation have to be done carefully so as not to stifle genuine free speech, but it can be done. I find it bizarre that you think the fact that some scientists are interested in this approach is a sign of being power-hungry rather than being concerned about said misinformation.

1 Like

Scientists are not being ignored. Their Advise is on record.
However, in a democracy, the final decision making authority is with the elected representatives.
This applies irrespective of whether the decision taken is good or bad, right or wrong.
People have the right to protest against wrong decisions and campaign against(which scientists are doing). The only way to insist on unconditional obedience is by setting up an oligarchy or dictatorship and impose one’s decisions.

Any attempts to “combat misinformation” which involves a body of people who have power will result in a biased stifling of information.
Social media platforms should not be treated as newspapers, schools etc. If people don’t have the sense to check what they see on facebook, then its their fault.

Let me give you an example. The Indian government is pressuring Facebook and other social platforms to “check” fake news… Interestingly enough, the party in power has an extensive propaganda network which creates a lot of fake news.
Do you wanna take a guess at how successful such an effort is going to be?

Social networks are private enterprises. They have no intrinsic commitment to ensure the veracity of the posts( unlike a newspaper). However, they have an interest in keeping people with the power to regulate the internet happy.
Do the math.

That’s a complete non-sequitur. I’m not saying that scientists are necessarily being stifled from speaking or even being heard, but if their advice falls on deaf ears then they are being ignored. There is a difference between listening to a scientist and taking their advice on board, and listening to a scientist but ignoring their advice, regardless of the final decision that gets made. This has nothing to do with insisting on unconditional obedience. Stop with the straw men.

I didn’t say it would be easy (I said the opposite), but there’s no inherent reason why threading the needle is impossible.

They also have an interest in keeping their users happy. Users who for the most part don’t want blatantly false information on the platform. It’s no different from a newspaper that wants to maintain a reputation.

Let’s stay on topic though - this thread began with you accusing scientists of craving power because they want to combat misinformation, remember?

My point is that elected representatives have a right to ignore/partially implement or fully implement scientific advise.
You can’t impeach Trump for not listening to Dr Fauci.
People might vote him out for it. You need to understand this and accept this is how democracies function.

I am not making straw man arguments. The difference between “advise” and “orders” are that advise can be taken or rejected.

It is different. That’s the point.

Users are interested in interacting, being entertained,building a business, soliciting votes, being heard and a lot of other things which is not possible in a news paper.

Edit: Social networks do not create any content, so their reputation depends only on how good a platform they provide to share content.

Its a totally different ball game.

I stand by what i said. Demands for increased policing of Social network are about power.

People are interested in Social networks because it gives an unprecedented power to influence a large number of people. Scientists are interested in this power for the same reason that politicians are.
Would you be comfortable with Donald Trump making laws to ensure/compel social networks to Police “fake news”? End of the day, you are giving more power to the government.
Or are you thinking of a body of scientists who will decide what is “fake” and whats not?

What’s your view on the Indian Governments push to eliminate fake news?

“Protecting” people from the impact of “fake news” is just an excuse to be in charge and have the power to control the information people can access.
People don’t need that kind of “protecting”.

Who are you arguing with? I can’t be me because that response is irrelevant to everything I’ve said. I understand and accept how democracies work, but it’s simply not true that literally the only way to regulate politicians is by voting for or against them. I haven’t said a work about impeachment, but it could certainly be argued that a politician could suffer legal ramifications if they knowingly ignore information in making decisions that affect public health, for example. Again, notice I’m talking about ignoring advise or information, not rejecting it. There is a subtle difference.

And if the platform becomes saturated with blatant misinformation, how do you think the users will react? Favourably or not? Are users more likely to remain in the cesspit or move to a different platform? Facebook already has a reputation as a place where lots of misinformation and nonsense gets shared, do you think they’re proud of that?

The difference is that scientists don’t want to influence a large number of people for selfish reasons, unlike politicians. It’s disingenuous to describe this as scientists being “power-hungry”. In this case, they want to save lives by communicating the best available scientific evidence. There is a difference between policing misinformation about scientific issues, which can often be evaluated objectively, and misinformation about other political issues, which often cannot be.

Again, you’re ascribing these selfish, malevolent motives to scientists who want the public to have the most accurate information. I don’t understand you at all.

How do you differentiate between rejecting and ignoring advise. Isn’t it a subjective judgement?
Does it work vice versa? Can scientists be sued if their projections turn out to be exaggerated.

End of the day, the buck stops with the elected representative. That’s the way it should be.

Social networks have different mechanisms in place to try and make sure people get linked to sources they use more often and are not swamped by information (whether true or false). Users can also block others.

The efficacy of this mechanism plays a role in the popularity of the network.
Filtering out “fake” news won’t really make much of a change.

I think their stand is that they dont create the content and there is nothing to be proud of or ashamed about.

That’s a fair stand imo.

Of course, they are under a lot of pressure to regulate content. This is because some Governments want some kind of ability to censor stuff (including the Indian government).

Scientists have platforms which they fully control through which they can inform the public.
Nobody stops universities and individual scientists from forming their own accounts and disseminating accurate information.

What scientists want in this case is more than the privilege of sharing accurate information. It’s the power to decide what information is suitable for the people and what is not.

People should be treated as adults who are capable of making their own decisions. Not children who have to be told whom to listen to and whom not to listen to.
And scientists are not parents who can tell people what’s good for them to read or listen to and what’s not.
It’s a kind of protection that is harmful to democracy.

This is about power. Plain and simple.

You did not respond to how you would react if Trump was the one calling shots on what is fake news and what is not?

Or the voters can ignore the experts, vilify them, and then vote for the people who originally ignored the experts. Tribalism 101.

That is correct. This is why democracy is the worst governmental system, except for all the others.

1 Like

It’s like the world is listening to this discussion:

1 Like

I agree with you…
And we should learn to live with it.

Anyone who wants to see change should accept that the way to bring it about in a democratic system is through discourse,reasoning, debate, social movements or even propaganda… banning stuff and imposing silence on those who disagree is not the way to go.

1 Like

Not to take away from the glorious failures of the administration, but It has not helped that the CDC and especially the WHO squandered the the public trust early on, and still seem to have great difficulty with consistent messaging.

3 Likes