Aeon has an interesting article on bullshit:
We live in the age of information, which means that we also live in the age of misinformation. Indeed, you have likely come across more bullshit so far this week than a normal person living 1,000 years ago would in their entire lifetime. If we were to add up every word in every scholarly piece of work published prior to the Enlightenment, this number would still pale in comparison with the number of words used to promulgate bullshit on the internet in the 21st century alone.
If you find your head nodding, start shaking it. I’m bullshitting you.
Ha! I knew it!
How could I possibly know how much bullshit you have come across this week? What if you’re reading this on a Sunday? Who is a ‘normal’ person living 1,000 years ago? And how could I know how much bullshit they had to deal with?
It was very easy to construct this bullshit. Once I set out to impress rather than inform, a burden was lifted from my shoulders and placed onto yours. My opening statements could very well be true, but we have no way of knowing. Their truth or falsity were irrelevant to me, the bullshitter.
[...] In his book, On Bullshit (2005), Frankfurt noted that ‘most people are rather confident of their ability to recognise bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it’. However, more than 98 per cent of our participants rated at least one item in our bullshit receptivity scales to be at least somewhat profound. We are not nearly as good at detecting bullshit as we think.
So, how might you – the reader – vaccinate yourself against it? For a non-spiritualist, it might be relatively easy to recognise when Chopra or Oz are concerned less with the truth than selling books or entertaining viewers. But think back to my opening paragraph. Bullshit is much harder to detect when we want to agree with it. The first and most important step is to recognise the limits of our own cognition. We must be humble about our ability to justify our own beliefs. These are the keys to adopting a critical mindset – which is our only hope in a world so full of bullshit.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday July 20 2018, @02:39PM (1 child)
I lean towards compatibilism myself. khallow doesn't though. [soylentnews.org]
I think it's almost totally a matter of definition. It has to be really, because whatever side of the fence you are, your theory has to fit with the perceived sense of free will people have in everyday life.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Saturday July 21 2018, @04:31AM
I'll note that presence of genuine, moderately nondeterministic free will fits with the "perceived sense". I even gave a straightforward physical mechanism for how it happens. The problem with Compatabilism is that it's a giant begging of the question with even definitions warped to fit.
Given the great deal of nondeterministic physics we see, it's not even necessary to consider.