Being mindful of our specific news sources.
Brictoria wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Is rational thinking like critical thinking rather than groupthink?

Close... This may help (or may not):
Quote:
rational thinking is about giving reasons; critical thinking is about using rationality to figure out what to believe.
Source: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-rational-thinking-and-critical-thinkingQuote:
What is critical thinking? Critical thinking has been defined in many ways, but is essentially the process of deliberate, systematic and logical thinking on any subject, while considering bias or assumptions that may affect your discussion.
https://student.unsw.edu.au › critical-thinking
Quote:
Rational thinking is our ability to draw justifiable conclusions from data, rules, and logic.
This means doing research and using information available to make the most rational decision.
This means doing research and using information available to make the most rational decision.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMoItVbkGfw
They look pretty close to me.
Dox47 wrote:
@DW_a_mom
What I'm trying to get at here is why I think your ideas about suppressing misinformation will backfire, the right already is convinced that the game is rigged against them when it comes to media, and what you're proposing will simply feed into and intensify that feeling.
What I'm trying to get at here is why I think your ideas about suppressing misinformation will backfire, the right already is convinced that the game is rigged against them when it comes to media, and what you're proposing will simply feed into and intensify that feeling.
Maybe.
To clarify, I didn't suggest suppressing information. I suggested asking sources to adhere to professional standards for vetting and presenting that information. Within that context, use all the bias wanted. But it was never more than an on-the-fly brainstorm.
Having so much provably false information out there (provable by those who know how to dig), compounded by the intentional sowing of distrust against organizations that do try to report with integrity, doesn't exactly help people feel connected and trusting, either.
Well, solving it will definitely be above my pay grade.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
DW_a_mom wrote:
Having so much provably false information out there (provable by those who know how to dig), compounded by the intentional sowing of distrust against organizations that do try to report with integrity, doesn't exactly help people feel connected and trusting, either.
Part of what I'm trying to get across here is that there is no need for distrust of those organizations to be sown, it's arisen largely organically by decades of biased reporting, and is regularly refreshed by fresh incidents, to name one recent example the way Cuomo was covered last year, an endless media blowjob that completely swept his mismanagement under the rug until it was no longer sustainable. You know who had accurate coverage of Cuomo? Right wing media.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Brictoria wrote:
We (and probably most people who interact with us) know it isn't me who, of the 2 of us, is the hyperpartisan on this site...
Being objective and doing the hard yakka research to discover the facts, is not a sign of hyperpartisanship.
Engaging in groupthink, selectively presenting information that only supports a particular political point of view while rejecting valid equivalency on the other side of the political divide (confirmation bias) and relying on gut feelings, fits the bill, however.
Dox47 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Having so much provably false information out there (provable by those who know how to dig), compounded by the intentional sowing of distrust against organizations that do try to report with integrity, doesn't exactly help people feel connected and trusting, either.
Part of what I'm trying to get across here is that there is no need for distrust of those organizations to be sown, it's arisen largely organically by decades of biased reporting, and is regularly refreshed by fresh incidents, to name one recent example the way Cuomo was covered last year, an endless media blowjob that completely swept his mismanagement under the rug until it was no longer sustainable. You know who had accurate coverage of Cuomo? Right wing media.
I've seen distrust be intentionally sown.
But we can agree to disagree.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
DW_a_mom wrote:
The nineties were already very different from the seventies and eighties. After the rise of Fox and Limbaugh, everyone realized there was money to be made in using trigger words. But it sounds like you've gone to a deeper source than I have, so hopefully you already get the point I was in-eloquently trying to make: that maybe some people feel cast adrift from the news and scholarship in part because they've been taught to distrust it, that profiteers want them to feel disassociated.
I really should research "Fox News".
Amerians seem to think it is the same as Australia's Sky News.
I find that hard to believe, but the rational thing would be to see for myself.
Pepe wrote:
I really should research "Fox News".
Amerians seem to think it is the same as Australia's Sky News.
I find that hard to believe, but the rational thing would be to see for myself.
Amerians seem to think it is the same as Australia's Sky News.
I find that hard to believe, but the rational thing would be to see for myself.
The straight news isn't too bad, it's biased in about the same way to the right as conventional news is to the left, actually less so than MSNBC and Trump era CNN, it's the opinion stuff you've got to be careful with. Tucker, for all of his many faults, has actually been doing a pretty good job of bringing on heterodox lefties lately, notably Glenn Greenwald and Micheal Tracy, which I view as a positive development, giving his audience exposure to anti-woke liberals is a good thing as it helps expand their intellectual horizons. Greenwald in particular is interesting, as he's been a staunch critic of the national security state since the W era, but has fallen out of favor with the left because he stayed consistent and savaged Obama for his drone war and debunked a lot of the Russian collusion stuff, which got him blackballed from most liberal media.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Pepe wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
The nineties were already very different from the seventies and eighties. After the rise of Fox and Limbaugh, everyone realized there was money to be made in using trigger words. But it sounds like you've gone to a deeper source than I have, so hopefully you already get the point I was in-eloquently trying to make: that maybe some people feel cast adrift from the news and scholarship in part because they've been taught to distrust it, that profiteers want them to feel disassociated.
I really should research "Fox News".
Amerians seem to think it is the same as Australia's Sky News.
I find that hard to believe, but the rational thing would be to see for myself.
well Im canadian and think it looks quite simalar to fox news,sharing similar moronizms..
Dox47 wrote:
Every time I hear about settled science or scientific consensus, I imagine our generation's Galileo being kicked off of social media and denounced as a conspiracy theorist, which I suppose is an improvement on the treatment the historical Galileo received.
Hope you are not comparing Galileo with anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers and climate conspiracy theorists. He would be rolling in his grave.
Brictoria wrote:
As a side note, it's interesting to note that proponents of "systemic racism" also seem to be the most likely to attack the "victims" should they try to improve their lot (for instance, making snide, and racist, remarks about what their "nieces and nephews" may call them).
I have no idea what this pertains to but I am cognisant that I tend to focus on issues/news whereas you and your "squad" have a proclivity to attack me.
I doubt the person who you are referring to is widely respected in his community given his own "hyperpartisan" views. I also don't think he sees himself as a victim which I think is what you are trying to insinuate?
cyberdad wrote:
Hope you are not comparing Galileo with anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers and climate conspiracy theorists. He would be rolling in his grave.
How would you know? Heliocentricism was the conspiracy theory of it's day, 180° from the scientific consensus and considered so dangerous it had to be suppressed.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Hope you are not comparing Galileo with anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers and climate conspiracy theorists. He would be rolling in his grave.
How would you know? Heliocentricism was the conspiracy theory of it's day, 180° from the scientific consensus and considered so dangerous it had to be suppressed.
Yeah, but now we have the answers to all the mysteries of science: Authoritative Sources!
The_Znof wrote:
Pepe wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
The nineties were already very different from the seventies and eighties. After the rise of Fox and Limbaugh, everyone realized there was money to be made in using trigger words. But it sounds like you've gone to a deeper source than I have, so hopefully you already get the point I was in-eloquently trying to make: that maybe some people feel cast adrift from the news and scholarship in part because they've been taught to distrust it, that profiteers want them to feel disassociated.
I really should research "Fox News".
Amerians seem to think it is the same as Australia's Sky News.
I find that hard to believe, but the rational thing would be to see for myself.
well Im canadian and think it looks quite simalar to fox news,sharing similar moronizms..
Using emotive language damages your credibility coinage.
Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Hope you are not comparing Galileo with anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers and climate conspiracy theorists. He would be rolling in his grave.
How would you know? Heliocentricism was the conspiracy theory of it's day, 180° from the scientific consensus and considered so dangerous it had to be suppressed.
Heliocentricism was actually known by the ancient Egyptians (among other non-European cultures) and by philosophers who travelled to Alexandria to learn from them. The Christian church forbade any idea that didn't put the earth at the centre of the universe as it conflicted with biblical scripture that god was preoccupied with our planet when he created the earth as if the rest of the universe didn't count
So Galilieo wan't a conspiracist, he was using empirical knowledge and the scientific method.
The people getting thrown off social media and other platforms are crazy/tin foil hat people and deserve to be thrown off for contaminating media airwaves with talk of anti-mask, ant-vaccination rubbish that leads to deaths.
cyberdad wrote:
Heliocentricism was actually known by the ancient Egyptians (among other non-European cultures) and by philosophers who travelled to Alexandria to learn from them. The Christian church forbade any idea that didn't put the earth at the centre of the universe as it conflicted with biblical scripture that god was preoccupied with our planet when he created the earth as if the rest of the universe didn't count
. It was the orthodox church that finally lynched the last heliocentrists and burned down the library of Alexander sweeping the ash of knowledge and history under the carpet.
So Galilieo wan't a conspiracist, he was using empirical knowledge and the scientific method.
The people getting thrown off social media and other platforms are crazy/tin foil hat people and deserve to be thrown off for contaminating media airwaves with talk of anti-mask, ant-vaccination rubbish that leads to deaths.
So Galilieo wan't a conspiracist, he was using empirical knowledge and the scientific method.
The people getting thrown off social media and other platforms are crazy/tin foil hat people and deserve to be thrown off for contaminating media airwaves with talk of anti-mask, ant-vaccination rubbish that leads to deaths.
How is that different than social media companies, who are not scientists, deciding what is and is not factual, and suppressing information that doesn't conform to current orthodoxy, even as they're shown to have gotten it wrong over and over?
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Dox47 wrote:
How is that different than social media companies, who are not scientists, deciding what is and is not factual, and suppressing information that doesn't conform to current orthodoxy, even as they're shown to have gotten it wrong over and over?
Well that is a seperate matter, the moderation of these platforms needs to be carefully scrutinised in the same way they demonetize youtubers for breaching their platform guidelines.
