> along the lines of bill gates inserting microchips in your brain or 5G infecting you with a virus, or you suffocating from wearing a mask
There is some of this, yes. But then there are also questions regarding financial motives behind vaccines, and the unusual manner in which statistics are reported, and why certain portions of reality shall not be discussed, and so forth and so on. Lots of people assert that these ideas are also "bullshit", but if you ask for evidence substantiating that assertion, they often behave as if the notion that assertions should require evidence is absurd (while simultaneously criticizing conspiracy theorists for asserting things without evidence).
> It's not like we're talking about any sophisticated philosophizing here
I don't think philosophers would agree that epistemology is simple - that it often seems to invoke such strong emotions in people suggests that it is anything but. It has a dependency on human cognition, which is fairly well known to be a less than perfect platform in many ways.
> the real danger from misinformation on the internet at the moment is the lowest of lowbrow garbage spread at extremely high velocity at virtually no cost.
This is surely "a" danger, but whether it is "the" (main) danger is necessarily speculative, as it has a dependency on the future, which is unknown.
Really anyone with five braincells. Can someone explain to me why Hackernews and much of the rest of the internet, has descended into this nihilistic relativism where acknowleding even basic, empirical reality has apparently become impossible?
Viral diseases aren't spread through radiowaves. That's not a matter of opinion, that's a fact. Of course a significant portion of people might be so scientifically illiterate they cannot figure that out, that doesn't change the fact that it's not true.
This constant childish "hey but how do you know that this is true buddy" talk around misinformation and information is really driving me nuts.
> Really anyone with five braincells....a significant portion of people might be so scientifically illiterate they cannot figure that out
Per the HN guidelines: "Don't be snarky...Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."
> Viral diseases aren't spread through radiowaves.
You're clearly not responding to the parent, since they weren't defending that. It would be more interesting if you responded to the not-so-strawman position they actually represented.
> This constant childish "hey but how do you know that this is true buddy" talk around misinformation and information is really driving me nuts.
It drives me nuts, too, when people refuse to consider alternative perspectives because the source seems tainted.
> Can someone explain to me why Hackernews and much of the rest of the internet, has descended into this nihilistic relativism where acknowleding even basic, empirical reality has apparently become impossible?
I do it because of the increasingly prevalence of authoritarianism over logic, that too many people seem to no longer be capable of someone disagreeing with them (while they disagree with someone else) without losing their cool.
> Viral diseases aren't spread through radiowaves. That's not a matter of opinion, that's a fact. Of course a significant portion of people might be so scientifically illiterate they cannot figure that out, that doesn't change the fact that it's not true.
I clearly acknowledged (in a separate comment from "Most of the bullshit...) the silly 5G --> covide theory, before proceeding to point out several far less silly ideas that are often considered bullshit. Yet, your comment seems to be written as if you did not notice the distinction I made. I am very curious what mechanism is behind this - was this a cool, calculated, deliberately rhetorical response, or was it more toward the instinctual end of the spectrum? Considering the increasing amount of hostility and polarization that can easily be observed everywhere on social media (or the riots in the streets, burning of buildings, smashing of cars, etc) these don't seem like a "nihilistically relativist" questions to me - the whole mess seems like a pretty big deal. You are welcome to disagree of course, but in doing so I'd prefer if you don't declare reality to be a certain way without providing evidence.
> This constant childish "hey but how do you know that this is true buddy" talk around misinformation and information is really driving me nuts.
This is kind of my point: "...but if you ask for evidence substantiating that assertion, they often behave as if the notion that assertions should require evidence is absurd".
If someone disagreeing with your opinion invokes a feeling that they are "childish", and "drives you nuts", perhaps the problem isn't entirely with the other person.
The basis for authoritarianism isn't authority over logic, it's the disregard for truth and expertise in and of itself, that is to say the inability, or unwillingness to distinguish legitimate authority from demagoguery.
What's increasingly prevalent isn't inability to disagree, it's too much disagreement. QAnon's slogan is "question everything". The conspiracy theorist doesn't lack scepticism but trust.
That's the basis for misinformation, a culture in which anything goes, and in which the average consumer of media trusts nobody and is destabilized.
>but if you ask for evidence substantiating that assertion, they often behave as if the notion that assertions should require evidence is absurd
That's not the point. The point of constant questioning is to essentially exhaust any institution. When you tell someone that masks don't kill people and give them some proof, they'll say "but what if I don't trust the health authorities?", then you'll give them a reference to the science and they'll say "but what if I don't trust the scientists" and then you'll explain it again to them and they'll have another reason to disagree. That's what I mean by 'childish', it's literally a never-ending sequence of "but what if's", the same can of course be seen with issues like climate change and so on.
this is on display in the US right now. Political lies are repeated without end that have long been disproved but the mere fact of bringing them up again and again exhausts everyone and creates an atmosphere of insanity, which is the breeding ground for authoritarianism.
I acknowledge that many conspiracy theories are silly and harmful.
Are you able to acknowledge, or consider the possibility, that:
- there are some instances of legitimate questions that are dismissed as "bullshit"?
- sometimes people are extremely certain of the truth of something that is not actually true?
- some things are not known?
- some things that are not known, are falsely reported as being known?
- the world is much more complicated than it seems, or is described by the media?
A disinterested alien from another planet with no foreknowledge of prior events might read your words and form the conclusion that the flaws in this scenario are 100% on the side of those who question the status quo. Do you believe the status quo description of reality is 100% perfect, not one single flaw anywhere within the narrative? The point of these questions is to see if you believe skeptical people have any legitimacy whatsoever, because I am not picking up on that from your words.
Bullshit according to who (which is my point)?
> along the lines of bill gates inserting microchips in your brain or 5G infecting you with a virus, or you suffocating from wearing a mask
There is some of this, yes. But then there are also questions regarding financial motives behind vaccines, and the unusual manner in which statistics are reported, and why certain portions of reality shall not be discussed, and so forth and so on. Lots of people assert that these ideas are also "bullshit", but if you ask for evidence substantiating that assertion, they often behave as if the notion that assertions should require evidence is absurd (while simultaneously criticizing conspiracy theorists for asserting things without evidence).
> It's not like we're talking about any sophisticated philosophizing here
I don't think philosophers would agree that epistemology is simple - that it often seems to invoke such strong emotions in people suggests that it is anything but. It has a dependency on human cognition, which is fairly well known to be a less than perfect platform in many ways.
> the real danger from misinformation on the internet at the moment is the lowest of lowbrow garbage spread at extremely high velocity at virtually no cost.
This is surely "a" danger, but whether it is "the" (main) danger is necessarily speculative, as it has a dependency on the future, which is unknown.