1 2 > 
 
   
 

The Rise of Ambiguity

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6373
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
02 July 2019 19:11
 

I think that in the past ambiguity was an issue where professionals would make short sited conclusions. I think that now with social media giving everyone a platform, it’s becoming fashionable to re-phrase and re-frame things so that you seem like you’re addressing an issue from a profound angle rather than actually understanding the issue enough to speak intelligently or even simply about it. And it’s short character writing, which already requires the difficult task of being succinct, but when coupled with a preoccupation for seeming smart, people are starting to sound ridiculously ambiguous out there.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17604
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
02 July 2019 21:59
 

Yep, sound bites.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
04 July 2019 09:08
 

Not only people, but much of what we laughingly call “journalism” is also infected.

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6373
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
04 July 2019 12:06
 
GAD - 02 July 2019 09:59 PM

Yep, sound bites.

I feel like that is what they are, but sadly there also what people think are their own good faith attempts at adding to the conversation.

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6373
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
04 July 2019 12:12
 
icehorse - 04 July 2019 09:08 AM

Not only people, but much of what we laughingly call “journalism” is also infected.

It’s weird, too, because once you start noticing it, it really could ruin a good story. And then with TV news you don’t even know where it comes from e.g the writers, company or the host.

There’s people like Sam and some others that I think do a really good job of framing issues so they make sense outside of single lense perspectives, but now everyone with a Twitter account thinks that if they just say something super basic that’s the same thing. Is there such a thing as an oversimplification fallacy?

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
04 July 2019 17:43
 
Jb8989 - 04 July 2019 12:12 PM
icehorse - 04 July 2019 09:08 AM

Not only people, but much of what we laughingly call “journalism” is also infected.

It’s weird, too, because once you start noticing it, it really could ruin a good story. And then with TV news you don’t even know where it comes from e.g the writers, company or the host.

There’s people like Sam and some others that I think do a really good job of framing issues so they make sense outside of single lense perspectives, but now everyone with a Twitter account thinks that if they just say something super basic that’s the same thing. Is there such a thing as an oversimplification fallacy?


There is now.  Congratulations!

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6373
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
06 July 2019 07:51
 
EN - 04 July 2019 05:43 PM
Jb8989 - 04 July 2019 12:12 PM
icehorse - 04 July 2019 09:08 AM

Not only people, but much of what we laughingly call “journalism” is also infected.

It’s weird, too, because once you start noticing it, it really could ruin a good story. And then with TV news you don’t even know where it comes from e.g the writers, company or the host.

There’s people like Sam and some others that I think do a really good job of framing issues so they make sense outside of single lense perspectives, but now everyone with a Twitter account thinks that if they just say something super basic that’s the same thing. Is there such a thing as an oversimplification fallacy?


There is now.  Congratulations!

I found it. The Fallacy of The Single Cause…

From wiki: It can be logically reduced to: ” X caused Y; therefore, X was the only cause of Y” (although A,B,C…etc. also contributed to Y).

It seems to me that there’s all sorts of creative ways people make this fallacy.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
06 July 2019 08:47
 
Jb8989 - 06 July 2019 07:51 AM
EN - 04 July 2019 05:43 PM
Jb8989 - 04 July 2019 12:12 PM
icehorse - 04 July 2019 09:08 AM

Not only people, but much of what we laughingly call “journalism” is also infected.

It’s weird, too, because once you start noticing it, it really could ruin a good story. And then with TV news you don’t even know where it comes from e.g the writers, company or the host.

There’s people like Sam and some others that I think do a really good job of framing issues so they make sense outside of single lense perspectives, but now everyone with a Twitter account thinks that if they just say something super basic that’s the same thing. Is there such a thing as an oversimplification fallacy?


There is now.  Congratulations!

I found it. The Fallacy of The Single Cause…

From wiki: It can be logically reduced to: ” X caused Y; therefore, X was the only cause of Y” (although A,B,C…etc. also contributed to Y).

It seems to me that there’s all sorts of creative ways people make this fallacy.

very useful, thanks.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7107
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
06 July 2019 08:57
 

Along with increased ambiguity is the delusional idea that all opinions are of equal or similar value.

So the ambiguous tweet that drifts towards fallacious single-cause-ism, may also be considered as relevant as an expert and detailed study of a subject.
The Anti-vax movement is a great example of this at work.  Decades of medical research and study tossed out in favour of google-esque ‘research’ of opinion-piece articles and debunked fraudulent figureheads.  Or the ‘toxins’ meme permeating new-age-diet articles.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
06 July 2019 09:02
 
Jefe - 06 July 2019 08:57 AM

Along with increased ambiguity is the delusional idea that all opinions are of equal or similar value.

So the ambiguous tweet that drifts towards fallacious single-cause-ism, may also be considered as relevant as an expert and detailed study of a subject.
The Anti-vax movement is a great example of this at work.  Decades of medical research and study tossed out in favour of google-esque ‘research’ of opinion-piece articles and debunked fraudulent figureheads.  Or the ‘toxins’ meme permeating new-age-diet articles.

A bit of a tangent (maybe?) is that the question of vaccinations has become a false dilemma. My take is that the US ought to trim its recommended vaccination schedule by about 20-25%. That opinion tends to have me cast as an anti-vaxxer.  wink

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7107
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
06 July 2019 09:08
 
icehorse - 06 July 2019 09:02 AM
Jefe - 06 July 2019 08:57 AM

Along with increased ambiguity is the delusional idea that all opinions are of equal or similar value.

So the ambiguous tweet that drifts towards fallacious single-cause-ism, may also be considered as relevant as an expert and detailed study of a subject.
The Anti-vax movement is a great example of this at work.  Decades of medical research and study tossed out in favour of google-esque ‘research’ of opinion-piece articles and debunked fraudulent figureheads.  Or the ‘toxins’ meme permeating new-age-diet articles.

A bit of a tangent (maybe?) is that the question of vaccinations has become a false dilemma. My take is that the US ought to trim its recommended vaccination schedule by about 20-25%. That opinion tends to have me cast as an anti-vaxxer.  wink

(tangent continued) My question is how did you come by this opinion, and does it line up with medical statistics and projections.

If you just intuited it, that’s one thing, but if you have the medical chops to back it up, that is quite another.
Something tells me you don’t personally have the medical background in immunology, but if you could present facts that support your position, then those data should be presented somewhere….  (not here, this place is close to the last place data would be gathered from…)

 

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
06 July 2019 09:12
 
Jefe - 06 July 2019 09:08 AM
icehorse - 06 July 2019 09:02 AM
Jefe - 06 July 2019 08:57 AM

Along with increased ambiguity is the delusional idea that all opinions are of equal or similar value.

So the ambiguous tweet that drifts towards fallacious single-cause-ism, may also be considered as relevant as an expert and detailed study of a subject.
The Anti-vax movement is a great example of this at work.  Decades of medical research and study tossed out in favour of google-esque ‘research’ of opinion-piece articles and debunked fraudulent figureheads.  Or the ‘toxins’ meme permeating new-age-diet articles.

A bit of a tangent (maybe?) is that the question of vaccinations has become a false dilemma. My take is that the US ought to trim its recommended vaccination schedule by about 20-25%. That opinion tends to have me cast as an anti-vaxxer.  wink

(tangent continued) My question is how did you come by this opinion, and does it line up with medical statistics and projections.

If you just intuited it, that’s one thing, but if you have the medical chops to back it up, that is quite another.
Something tells me you don’t personally have the medical background in immunology, but if you could present facts that support your position, then those data should be presented somewhere….  (not here, this place is close to the last place data would be gathered from…)

Briefly, our health care isn’t as good as Europe’s and their schedule is about 75-80% of ours. Second, we act as though every disease on our schedule is equally seriousness, and they aren’t all equally serious. Third, is that a standard you hold yourself to? E.g., are you unwilling to weigh in on defense spending, or economic policies, or…?

[ Edited: 06 July 2019 09:14 by icehorse]
 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3401
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
06 July 2019 09:29
 
Jefe - 06 July 2019 08:57 AM

Along with increased ambiguity is the delusional idea that all opinions are of equal or similar value.

So the ambiguous tweet that drifts towards fallacious single-cause-ism, may also be considered as relevant as an expert and detailed study of a subject.
The Anti-vax movement is a great example of this at work.  Decades of medical research and study tossed out in favour of google-esque ‘research’ of opinion-piece articles and debunked fraudulent figureheads.  Or the ‘toxins’ meme permeating new-age-diet articles.

I agree.  The twitterer has gained far too much influence.  Even for those of us who reject it and have never signed up for it.  The news agencies too often give credibility by reporting on twitter feed, as if it represents something of importance or the views of the general public.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7107
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
06 July 2019 09:47
 
icehorse - 06 July 2019 09:12 AM
Jefe - 06 July 2019 09:08 AM
icehorse - 06 July 2019 09:02 AM
Jefe - 06 July 2019 08:57 AM

Along with increased ambiguity is the delusional idea that all opinions are of equal or similar value.

So the ambiguous tweet that drifts towards fallacious single-cause-ism, may also be considered as relevant as an expert and detailed study of a subject.
The Anti-vax movement is a great example of this at work.  Decades of medical research and study tossed out in favour of google-esque ‘research’ of opinion-piece articles and debunked fraudulent figureheads.  Or the ‘toxins’ meme permeating new-age-diet articles.

A bit of a tangent (maybe?) is that the question of vaccinations has become a false dilemma. My take is that the US ought to trim its recommended vaccination schedule by about 20-25%. That opinion tends to have me cast as an anti-vaxxer.  wink

(tangent continued) My question is how did you come by this opinion, and does it line up with medical statistics and projections.

If you just intuited it, that’s one thing, but if you have the medical chops to back it up, that is quite another.
Something tells me you don’t personally have the medical background in immunology, but if you could present facts that support your position, then those data should be presented somewhere….  (not here, this place is close to the last place data would be gathered from…)

Briefly, our health care isn’t as good as Europe’s and their schedule is about 75-80% of ours. Second, we act as though every disease on our schedule is equally seriousness, and they aren’t all equally serious. Third, is that a standard you hold yourself to? E.g., are you unwilling to weigh in on defense spending, or economic policies, or…?

Breakout thread created: https://forum.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/71838/

Back to JB’s topic here…

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7107
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
06 July 2019 09:50
 
Jan_CAN - 06 July 2019 09:29 AM
Jefe - 06 July 2019 08:57 AM

Along with increased ambiguity is the delusional idea that all opinions are of equal or similar value.

So the ambiguous tweet that drifts towards fallacious single-cause-ism, may also be considered as relevant as an expert and detailed study of a subject.
The Anti-vax movement is a great example of this at work.  Decades of medical research and study tossed out in favour of google-esque ‘research’ of opinion-piece articles and debunked fraudulent figureheads.  Or the ‘toxins’ meme permeating new-age-diet articles.

I agree.  The twitterer has gained far too much influence.  Even for those of us who reject it and have never signed up for it.  The news agencies too often give credibility by reporting on twitter feed, as if it represents something of importance or the views of the general public.

The ‘automated twitter feed article’ may never actually have been touched by human hand…. or maybe even just a ‘quick check before publishing online…’.  One clue is awkward grammar and phraseology in the ‘listicle’. 

My favorites are the ones that start with a headline similar to “This is what people on twitter are saying about…”
It’s just an auto-aggregated scrape, and hardly warrants description as ‘news’.

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6373
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
07 July 2019 08:26
 
Jefe - 06 July 2019 08:57 AM

Along with increased ambiguity is the delusional idea that all opinions are of equal or similar value.

So the ambiguous tweet that drifts towards fallacious single-cause-ism, may also be considered as relevant as an expert and detailed study of a subject.
The Anti-vax movement is a great example of this at work.  Decades of medical research and study tossed out in favour of google-esque ‘research’ of opinion-piece articles and debunked fraudulent figureheads.  Or the ‘toxins’ meme permeating new-age-diet articles.

Totally! They probably work hand in hand into what might be a new type of entitlement disorder (“ED”).  In the past, ED stood for those overly-wanting money, services and property from the government. Now it seems like there’s a new ED where droves of unqualified people want intellectual validity in the media marketplace. Maybe regular media should make a more concerted effort to distance itself from social media. Instead popularity is screwing us out of solid stories.

The other thing is the idea of cutting edge v. being objective. Everyone wants to seem cutting edge. And being meta somehow got conflated in there.

 

 

 
 
 1 2 >