What I hate about this statement is that "truth" has been wrapped in political ideology. The idea that carving a section of memespace out for a worldview now means that worldview owns the "truth" is batshit insane.
Truth doesn't care about progressive or conservative.
Truth doesn't care about left or right.
Truth doesn't care.
Truth just is.
The problem is when people don't care to seek the truth, and instead they seeking an in-crowd. Then you simply have uncaring mobs.
Truth is less straightforward than might appear. More often than not, if you try to establish truth on some divisive question from first principles—honestly, without any hidden agenda of your own—you arrive at the unknown (no consensus in the field) and/or philosophical matter (out of scope of natural science) before you can blink.
(Of course, that’s in addition to the fact that all science is inherently flawed and biased, because we are.)
In case of politically divisive questions, as an example, these two sentences can contradict each other and be true at the same time: 1) “abortion is killing a living being”, and 2) “abortion is a free person exercising control over her own body”. The host of questions you’d need to explore in order to make a point of truth is vast and includes the definition of life, whether there is free will, whether consequentialism is better than deontology, etc.; and if you claim that this does not matter then congratulations—you have already adopted a position on some politically divisive question.
In philosophical terms, truth in absolute sense would require having some hypothetical access to underlying reality; since we can never have that (as all of our access to reality is mediated by our mind), we only have access to lossy models or maps; and because there is always more than one model or map that can be useful depending on the purpose, there is always a subset of claims where one has the opposite truth value (or no truth value) in one of the maps.
In short, not only no one “owns” the truth, but anyone who claims to actually “know” it is being delusional or misleading; the solution to alienating political divisiveness is not obtaining unobtainable objective truth but finding common ground.
I wonder if social networks continue to bifurcate? Truth Social, Gab and X on the right and Mastadon, BlueSky on the left and Threads somewhere in between focused on celebrities?
This article suggests that there is a bifurcation happening:
It seems like conservatives suffered bad-faith censorship about as often as other groups. Virtually all examples I've seen are either legitimate (an expression of a "conservative viewpoint" broke politically-neutral rules of discourse), or are admitted mistakes (which happen to everybody, though conservatives might be disproportionately affected because they tend to skirt the line more - sometimes by nature and sometimes as a provocation tactic). In fact, Musk's messaging seems to be more favorable of censorship, though I'm not sure if the bias in actual practice now is stronger than before, or merely as strong (i.e. a little bit).
Also, your tone is superior, which is a flaw we normally associate with liberals, and I'm seeing this shift more. This seems related.
_carbyau_|1 year ago
Truth doesn't care about progressive or conservative.
Truth doesn't care about left or right.
Truth doesn't care.
Truth just is.
The problem is when people don't care to seek the truth, and instead they seeking an in-crowd. Then you simply have uncaring mobs.
strogonoff|1 year ago
(Of course, that’s in addition to the fact that all science is inherently flawed and biased, because we are.)
In case of politically divisive questions, as an example, these two sentences can contradict each other and be true at the same time: 1) “abortion is killing a living being”, and 2) “abortion is a free person exercising control over her own body”. The host of questions you’d need to explore in order to make a point of truth is vast and includes the definition of life, whether there is free will, whether consequentialism is better than deontology, etc.; and if you claim that this does not matter then congratulations—you have already adopted a position on some politically divisive question.
In philosophical terms, truth in absolute sense would require having some hypothetical access to underlying reality; since we can never have that (as all of our access to reality is mediated by our mind), we only have access to lossy models or maps; and because there is always more than one model or map that can be useful depending on the purpose, there is always a subset of claims where one has the opposite truth value (or no truth value) in one of the maps.
In short, not only no one “owns” the truth, but anyone who claims to actually “know” it is being delusional or misleading; the solution to alienating political divisiveness is not obtaining unobtainable objective truth but finding common ground.
bhouston|1 year ago
This article suggests that there is a bifurcation happening:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/10/29/elon-mu...
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
8338550bff96|1 year ago
happytoexplain|1 year ago
Also, your tone is superior, which is a flaw we normally associate with liberals, and I'm seeing this shift more. This seems related.
GaggiX|1 year ago
jimjimjim|1 year ago
KPGv2|1 year ago