I’m going to do a full blog post on this soon, but for now, check out this pledge https://www.protruthpledge.org/
It’s basically journalistic integrity mixed with a little Bertrand Russell. It would be assume if we could get everyone doing this and create an honest internet.
No huge expectations. Nice to think about.
I Pledge My Earnest Efforts To:
Share truth
• Verify: fact-check information to confirm it is true before accepting and sharing it
• Balance: share the whole truth, even if some aspects do not support my opinion
• Cite: share my sources so that others can verify my information
• Clarify: distinguish between my opinion and the facts
Honor truth
• Acknowledge: acknowledge when others share true information, even when we disagree otherwise
• Reevaluate: reevaluate if my information is challenged, retract it if I cannot verify it
• Defend: defend others when they come under attack for sharing true information, even when we disagree otherwise
• Align: align my opinions and my actions with true information
Encourage truth
• Fix: ask people to retract information that reliable sources have disproved even if they are my allies
• Educate: compassionately inform those around me to stop using unreliable sources even if these sources support my opinion
• Defer: recognize the opinions of experts as more likely to be accurate when the facts are disputed
• Celebrate: celebrate those who retract incorrect statements and update their beliefs toward the truth
I'm going to do a full blog post on this soon, but for now, check out this pledge https://www.protruthpledge.org/ It's basically journalistic integrity mixed with a little Bertrand Russell. It would be assume if we could get everyone doing this and create an honest internet. No huge expectations. Nice to think about. I Pledge My Earnest Efforts To: Share truth • Verify: fact-check information to confirm it is true before accepting and sharing it • Balance: share the whole truth, even if some aspects do not support my opinion • Cite: share my sources so that others can verify my information • Clarify: distinguish between my opinion and the facts Honor truth • Acknowledge: acknowledge when others share true information, even when we disagree otherwise • Reevaluate: reevaluate if my information is challenged, retract it if I cannot verify it • Defend: defend others when they come under attack for sharing true information, even when we disagree otherwise • Align: align my opinions and my actions with true information Encourage truth • Fix: ask people to retract information that reliable sources have disproved even if they are my allies • Educate: compassionately inform those around me to stop using unreliable sources even if these sources support my opinion • Defer: recognize the opinions of experts as more likely to be accurate when the facts are disputed • Celebrate: celebrate those who retract incorrect statements and update their beliefs toward the truthIn general I'm in full agreement.
I'm going to do a full blog post on this soon, but for now, check out this pledge https://www.protruthpledge.org/ It's basically journalistic integrity mixed with a little Bertrand Russell. It would be assume if we could get everyone doing this and create an honest internet. No huge expectations. Nice to think about. I Pledge My Earnest Efforts To: Share truth • Verify: fact-check information to confirm it is true before accepting and sharing it • Balance: share the whole truth, even if some aspects do not support my opinion • Cite: share my sources so that others can verify my information • Clarify: distinguish between my opinion and the facts Honor truth • Acknowledge: acknowledge when others share true information, even when we disagree otherwise • Reevaluate: reevaluate if my information is challenged, retract it if I cannot verify it • Defend: defend others when they come under attack for sharing true information, even when we disagree otherwise • Align: align my opinions and my actions with true information Encourage truth • Fix: ask people to retract information that reliable sources have disproved even if they are my allies • Educate: compassionately inform those around me to stop using unreliable sources even if these sources support my opinion • Defer: recognize the opinions of experts as more likely to be accurate when the facts are disputed • Celebrate: celebrate those who retract incorrect statements and update their beliefs toward the truthGood plan, Lausten, but there are too many people who wouldn't know truth if it hit them in the face. They'll give you an argument every time.
The website provides links on key words, and the whole thing is constructed so you can point to a specific rule and show how it was broken. Sure, you have those people who say retractionwatch or snopes are in on the conspiracy, but they are rare enough.
A call for politically correct politics. LOL. That should go down well - and provide another topic for useless argument rather than getting on with constructive action. Another level of confusion for anyone trying to get at the truth.
There is little incentive to be honest. The world runs on emotion and success relies on evoking the right emotions - whether being voted into office or making heaps of money. Critical thinking is a lost skill - even in universities.
We envision a world where individuals, organizations, and governments intentionally use research-based strategies to make effective decisions, empowering all of us to live happy, meaningful, and flourishing lives.So people can fight over which experts are right. Experts can vote on which "theory" is correct and if they should act on it. Unfortunately "experts" can be wrong - and even bogus. Think a century of unnecessary deaths because "gentlemen don't have dirty hands" (child-bed fever) or the forced sterilization justified by eugenics - and even war. Even the subject of this topic which has at its roots the notion of "survival of the fittest" - at any cost. The richest capitalist, the elected politician, the most popular newscaster or "expert". All based on a false lay-version of economics and evolution. To deceive as so many do requires a high disregard for those you are attempting to deceive. An underlying lack of caring for fellow human beings that reflect the perceived opinion of "experts" in evolution and politics. Missing from this simple economic formula is the recognition that caring and cooperation are fundamental requirements of our existence.
A call for politically correct politics. LOL. .LOL, another person saying truth = politically correct. And then undefines any possible way of discerning what's true. Get people to not trust education, and any idiot can be in charge. And the evidence, mistakes made 100 years ago, prove the point, since we corrected those mistakes and now have common wisdom about what's true. Caring and cooperation are mentioned frequently in Darwin's works by the way. I'd like to hear how you define politically correct. How is it different from just "correct"?
Noble idea, and I’ve thought of doing something similar in the past. The problem is, the people who would do the pledge are not the ones we need to worry about. Pledgers would already be 99% there already. I think a better way would be some sort of Wall Of Shame. Politicians and Corporations who blatantly do damage should be publically shamed for all to see. Or how about a movement to require all Senators and Reps to hang a placard on their congressional desk, the ones everyone sees on TV, that has all the big donors logos.
Noble idea, and I've thought of doing something similar in the past. The problem is, the people who would do the pledge are not the ones we need to worry about. Pledgers would already be 99% there already. I think a better way would be some sort of Wall Of Shame. Politicians and Corporations who blatantly do damage should be publically shamed for all to see. Or how about a movement to require all Senators and Reps to hang a placard on their congressional desk, the ones everyone sees on TV, that has all the big donors logos.That'll be in the blog post, it was covered in the podcast where I heard this. The analogy is recycling. If you are going to say corporations should clean up their act, then you have to be doing it too. This is actually easier, in that there is no new infrastructure required. The scientific method already exists, it's a matter of understanding it and applying it.
A call for politically correct politics. LOL. .LOL, another person saying truth = politically correct. And then undefines any possible way of discerning what's true. Get people to not trust education, and any idiot can be in charge. And the evidence, mistakes made 100 years ago, prove the point, since we corrected those mistakes and now have common wisdom about what's true. Caring and cooperation are mentioned frequently in Darwin's works by the way. I'd like to hear how you define politically correct. How is it different from just "correct"? LOL, another wannabe world changer who doesn't even understand politically correct ≠ truth. And then focuses on their own little fantasy. Get people to not trust education, and any idiot can be in charge, just like it happened. And the evidence, mistakes made 100 years ago, prove the point, since we corrected those mistakes and now have common wisdom about what's true. OMG you can take a horse to water..... The fight over cigarettes and health, the Challenger disaster, fracking, immunizations and autism, DDT, the 2008 banking collapse and any number of current "controversies". Caring and cooperation are mentioned frequently in Darwin's works by the way. Congratulations on knowing that, but as I said, a false lay-version of economics and evolution. How many people know that and understand the contrast with "red in tooth and claw"? Besides, if I recall correctly, Darwin discussed it because he saw contradiction between cooperation and competition. Truth is good, but is only a part of getting along together. Maybe if we respected each other instead of the current put-down culture, truth would come out automatically.
I'd like to hear how you define politically correct. How is it different from just "correct"?Google it! Its about not using words rather than addressing the feelings conveyed by those words. spam antibody needs a second one
A forum is for discussion, i.e. hearing what you think. I already know what others think about political correctness. If you don't want to back up what you say with anything but mockery, don't bother.I'd like to hear how you define politically correct. How is it different from just "correct"?Google it! Its about not using words rather than addressing the feelings conveyed by those words. spam antibody needs a second one
If you don't want to back up what you say with anything but mockery, don't bother.Just following your wonderful example.
Here’s the full post]
It includes this quote from Bart Carpolo
“Science can’t proceed unless people agree to be honest with each other about their results. Everything has to be verifiable. When people lie about their results, it slows down the whole process. Science is a conversation and this conversation can only go forward if we agree to these ground rules. In the same way, collective governance, the social contract, social cooperation can only really do well if we agree to have the conversation where we all use the same facts. If we are going to live together, have a community, large or small, we’ve gotta agree to some rules of conversation. The first of those is everybody’s gotta tell the truth about physical things, money that can be accounted for, etc. Without that, we can’t make any decisions, we can’t even argue."Can't find much problem with that
If you don't want to back up what you say with anything but mockery, don't bother.Just following your wonderful example.No John you're playing the jerk hiding in your yard with your pea-shooter in hand. What is it? Do you resent us but can't actually face it eye to eye, so you slink in the background ready with cheap shots, then go back to hiding when confronted?
LOL, another wannabe world changer who doesn’t even understand politically correct ≠ truth.So howzabout filling in the blank Truth in political discourse is ___________________ .
Guess I’m trying to say what if TRUTH is the issue?
A call for politically correct politics. LOL. .LOL, another person saying truth = politically correct. And then undefines any possible way of discerning what's true. Get people to not trust education, and any idiot can be in charge. And the evidence, mistakes made 100 years ago, prove the point, since we corrected those mistakes and now have common wisdom about what's true. Caring and cooperation are mentioned frequently in Darwin's works by the way. I'd like to hear how you define politically correct. How is it different from just "correct"? It's a matter of seeming to be correct to a certain group of people. It's saying what that group of people want to hear. In reality, there may well be nothing correct in politically correct. It simply plays to the preconceived notions of a particular group.
A call for politically correct politics. LOL. .LOL, another person saying truth = politically correct. And then undefines any possible way of discerning what's true. Get people to not trust education, and any idiot can be in charge. And the evidence, mistakes made 100 years ago, prove the point, since we corrected those mistakes and now have common wisdom about what's true. Caring and cooperation are mentioned frequently in Darwin's works by the way. I'd like to hear how you define politically correct. How is it different from just "correct"? It's a matter of seeming to be correct to a certain group of people. It's saying what that group of people want to hear. In reality, there may well be nothing correct in politically correct. It simply plays to the preconceived notions of a particular group. Not bad. That is what it seems to be in practice.
Here's the full post] It includes this quote from Bart CarpoloYou meant Bart Campolo - who clearly doesn't understand science or scientists. Perhaps he just failed to verify - the first bullet of the pledge. Maybe you can let him know and then see if he is willing to retract - another bullet item. Scientists aren't some breed of super-ethical beings who are honest to protect their calling - as organizations like Retraction Watch (http://retractionwatch.com) demonstrate. Fraudsters can, and do appear in science and with many profiting from the grey area between science and pseudoscience. Science and scientific tradition has succeeded because the scientific community places a great deal of importance upon third-party verifiability and repeatability. Peer review before publication has been a longtime tradition. Some argue that it isn't the answer (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/) but it must be a disincentive to flagrant fraudsters. It has been somewhat undermined by what has become known as Predatory Publication in some journals (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4315198/). Media attention often focuses on new findings that have been peer-reviewed and published but have not been repeated by other labs. An essential part of the scientific process that is too slow to be acceptable in media circles looking for an exclusive or first-to-the-post story that will gain them attention (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science). They are reporting half-verified science. The bottom line is that scientists (and many individuals in other disciplines) are held to a standard of honesty by their peers who collectively have an interest in honesty. Dishonesty is identified and perpetrators often lose their jobs and certainly credibility. If you want to change the basis of " collective governance, the social contract, social cooperation", the focus needs to be on formalizing a process to ensure honesty and this isn't going to be done by taking any pledge. A pledge is just another contortion that can be used by dishonest people to give the impression that "they took the pledge, so what they say must be true." A related issue would be to reintroduce the notion of scepticism as a part of a school curriculum to provide people with better skills to recognize questionable honesty. I'm not sure this would go down too well since it may well reduce the effectiveness of propaganda and marketing. all I did was add a space“Science can’t proceed unless people agree to be honest with each other about their results. Everything has to be verifiable. When people lie about their results, it slows down the whole process. Science is a conversation and this conversation can only go forward if we agree to these ground rules. In the same way, collective governance, the social contract, social cooperation can only really do well if we agree to have the conversation where we all use the same facts. If we are going to live together, have a community, large or small, we’ve gotta agree to some rules of conversation. The first of those is everybody’s gotta tell the truth about physical things, money that can be accounted for, etc. Without that, we can’t make any decisions, we can’t even argue."Can't find much problem with that
Having a site like retraction watch is exactly why I trust scientific journals over websites designed to promote an agenda. If you aren’t willing to retract something, what are you basing your review on? Willingness to say you were wrong, once you have more information, is a key element of the scientific method. That there are fraudsters does not prove the method wrong, it proves people are fallible. You go on to say these things, so I don’t understand what you are trying to say in the first few sentences. Were you trying to explain the difference between media and science? I have no argument with that.
I don’t understand how you can be FOR the pledge when it applies to scientists, but against it when it applies to people discussing things without expert level knowledge in the field. You are trying to be both for the principles but against the specific implementation, or something. Hard to tell.
I don't understand how you can be FOR the pledge when it applies to scientists, but against it when it applies to people discussing things without expert level knowledge in the field. You are trying to be both for the principles but against the specific implementation, or something. Hard to tell.
Science and scientific tradition has succeeded because the scientific community places a great deal of importance upon third-party verifiability and repeatability.In other words, truth isn't accomplished by scientists taking "the pledge". It is accomplished (in many other areas of endeavor also) by formal and informal mechanisms of third-party verification with career or economic consequences if fraud is detected ("buyer beware", "due diligence"). I'm very much in support of honesty in any endeavor and for important decisions I always try to verify third party statements wherever they come from. If ever I don't verify, I am very aware that I'm making a risky decision - even if the information is based on "expert" opinion. The solution isn't to make promises of honesty which may or may not be kept, it is to educate people how to verify information for themselves. There are some indications that individuals will be marginally more honest if they are aware of honesty issues before their honesty is tested, so maybe "the pledge" would have a marginal effect, but hardly enough to provide any confidence in the truth of a statement without further verification. Other suggestions in "the pledge" offer ways to simplify verification and encourage honesty but again, taking the pledge doesn't guarantee anything. The other issue is that even honest individuals, including "experts" can be dishonest, at times maybe even unintentionally (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-honest-people-do-dishonest-things/) so it pays to be personally vigilant. As a perceived "expert" I used to advise my students not to believe what I said but to use it as a stepping stone to forming their own opinions. And I would say that regardless of any pledge I had made. The importance of "the pledge" is perhaps in making people aware of what they should be doing - whether they are the originator or the recipient of a statement.
I don't understand how you can be FOR the pledge when it applies to scientists, but against it when it applies to people discussing things without expert level knowledge in the field. You are trying to be both for the principles but against the specific implementation, or something. Hard to tell.
Science and scientific tradition has succeeded because the scientific community places a great deal of importance upon third-party verifiability and repeatability.In other words, truth isn't accomplished by scientists taking "the pledge". It is accomplished (in many other areas of endeavor also) by formal and informal mechanisms of third-party verification with career or economic consequences if fraud is detected ("buyer beware", "due diligence"). I'm very much in support of honesty in any endeavor and for important decisions I always try to verify third party statements wherever they come from. If ever I don't verify, I am very aware that I'm making a risky decision - even if the information is based on "expert" opinion. The solution isn't to make promises of honesty which may or may not be kept, it is to educate people how to verify information for themselves. There are some indications that individuals will be marginally more honest if they are aware of honesty issues before their honesty is tested, so maybe "the pledge" would have a marginal effect, but hardly enough to provide any confidence in the truth of a statement without further verification. Other suggestions in "the pledge" offer ways to simplify verification and encourage honesty but again, taking the pledge doesn't guarantee anything. The other issue is that even honest individuals, including "experts" can be dishonest, at times maybe even unintentionally (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-honest-people-do-dishonest-things/) so it pays to be personally vigilant. As a perceived "expert" I used to advise my students not to believe what I said but to use it as a stepping stone to forming their own opinions. And I would say that regardless of any pledge I had made. The importance of "the pledge" is perhaps in making people aware of what they should be doing - whether they are the originator or the recipient of a statement. For the third time, the pledge is not for scientists, it's for regular people who discuss science, as we all should be doing to help us make decisions about what is best for all of us. So, you agree with the idea of the pledge, but you just don't seem to understand what it is. You even put it in bold as if it is me who isn't getting it. And of course people do dishonest things, that's why you make a promise to listen when someone corrects you and set up so rules so when it happens it's a fair and consistent application of those rules. You have some visceral reaction to pledges, and given how obstinate and difficult you are, I'm not interested in why.