Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:20AM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-a-right-wing-thing dept.

Fake News Sharing in US is a Right-Wing Thing, Says Study

A study by researchers at Oxford University concluded that sharing fake and junk news is much more prevalent amongst Trump supporters and other people with hard right-wing tendencies.

From the Guardian:

The study, from the university's "computational propaganda project", looked at the most significant sources of "junk news" shared in the three months leading up to Donald Trump's first State of the Union address this January, and tried to find out who was sharing them and why.

"On Twitter, a network of Trump supporters consumes the largest volume of junk news, and junk news is the largest proportion of news links they share," the researchers concluded. On Facebook, the skew was even greater. There, "extreme hard right pages – distinct from Republican pages – share more junk news than all the other audiences put together.

Polarization, Partisanship and Junk News Consumption over Social Media in the US

What kinds of social media users read junk news? We examine the distribution of the most significant sources of junk news in the three months before President Donald Trump's first State of the Union Address. Drawing on a list of sources that consistently publish political news and information that is extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial, masked commentary, fake news and other forms of junk news, we find that the distribution of such content is unevenly spread across the ideological spectrum. We demonstrate that (1) on Twitter, a network of Trump supporters shares the widest range of known junk news sources and circulates more junk news than all the other groups put together; (2) on Facebook, extreme hard right pages—distinct from Republican pages—share the widest range of known junk news sources and circulate more junk news than all the other audiences put together; (3) on average, the audiences for junk news on Twitter share a wider range of known junk news sources than audiences on Facebook's public pages.

http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/polarization-partisanship-and-junk-news/

[Ed. note: page is loading very slowly; try a direct link to the actual report (pdf). --martyb]


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Touché) by Wootery on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:48AM (41 children)

    by Wootery (2341) on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:48AM (#634826)

    Yes yes, there is no such thing as objective reality, Trump is no more a liar than any other politician, and pigs have been able to fly for decades provided you respect my idea of a pig.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Flamebait=2, Informative=1, Touché=5, Total=8
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:28PM (26 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:28PM (#634845) Journal

    there is no such thing as objective reality,

    Well, there is one. Votes are sold to the highest bidder. That goes for the voters as much as it does for the crooked politicians they reelect.

    --
    Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
    • (Score: 1, Troll) by frojack on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:33PM (25 children)

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:33PM (#634991) Journal

      Votes are sold to the highest bidder.
      That goes for the voters as much as it does for the crooked politicians they reelect.

      And there you have another example of Fake News. Not even 5 posts deep into this thread.

      I've been doing this crazy voting thing about 50 years, and I've never met anyone paid to vote, offer me money to vote, offer anyone I know money to vote, heard of any bids. But apparently you have. Please be specific. Name state, place, election-race, and how much was offered. Not expecting names, because then the guilty might reach out and kill you. Because that happens every day right?

      Lets face it, you've made a fake assertion.
      On a Fake Issue.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:38PM

        by Wootery (2341) on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:38PM (#634994)

        Cynicism is edgy and makes you look wise. Why ruin the guy's day?

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:40PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:40PM (#634996)

        Cluebat: you're not the voter.

        Laws are passed by votes sold to the highest bidder.

      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:32PM (13 children)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:32PM (#635051) Journal

        :-) Nice try... strawman, right? but that's not how it works, and of course you know that. As the old saying goes: Everybody votes for their wallet. And lately there is a high level of antipathy to match. But one way or another, people are in it for the money. The politicians only reflect that, or they wouldn't be so successful. A single reelection says everything about the people that vote for them.

        --
        Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
        • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by frojack on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:13PM (12 children)

          by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:13PM (#635202) Journal

          You're the clown who said:

          That goes for the voters as much as it does for the crooked politicians they reelect.

          Stop trying to make it about something I said.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:35PM (11 children)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:35PM (#635250) Journal

            Yes, I said that because it's true. Your silly deflection does not apply. Crooked politicians don't just magically occupy the office for 20 years or more. It takes votes. And those votes have to be bought, not with cash, but a mere promise, and illusion of future prosperity through austerity.

            --
            Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:42AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:42AM (#635345)

              > It takes votes. And those votes have to be bought, not with cash, but a mere promise

              Uh, isn't that how this whole "democracy" thing works? Politicians make promises, people vote for them based on those promises. Crooked or not, the process is exactly the same.

              You're not speaking against corruption or whatever, you're speaking against the very idea of democracy :/

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @05:10PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @05:10PM (#635569) Journal
                I think the problem here is not that politicians make promises, but too many voters don't hold them accountable for not following through on those promises. There is after all a fair number of people who will vote merely because a politician is willing to pretend to care about a single issue (both sides of the abortion debate are a notorious example of that).
              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday February 09 2018, @06:11PM

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday February 09 2018, @06:11PM (#635620) Journal

                No, I'm saying democracy is only as good as its participants. Like everything else, garbage in-garbage out. People who complain about their (re)elected representatives are being very silly. Maybe they are blinded and confused by the clarity of the count. I certainly cannot share their feelings in light of the very process at their disposal that that can change things overnight should the desire ever arise.

                --
                Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @08:58AM (7 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @08:58AM (#635452) Journal

              and illusion of future prosperity through austerity.

              You had me to this point. Austerity hasn't been a notable component of such promises or the subsequent spending.

              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday February 09 2018, @01:29PM (6 children)

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday February 09 2018, @01:29PM (#635489) Journal

                Austerity has been part of the agenda since Nixon. Your other politicians might call it "reform" of some kind, which could explain the confusion, but it is austerity.

                --
                Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @04:09PM (5 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @04:09PM (#635540) Journal

                  Your other politicians might call it "reform" of some kind, which could explain the confusion, but it is austerity.

                  Sorry, that's not austerity. Austerity is a recent buzzword for policies forcibly imposed on the economically more dysfunctional countries of Europe such as Greece and Cyprus. And fiscal conservatism has been a thing much longer than Nixon.

                  I would classify this whole mess of issues as voting for promises rather than actions. Promises are very cheap to deliver.

                  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday February 09 2018, @04:57PM (4 children)

                    by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday February 09 2018, @04:57PM (#635562) Journal

                    I would classify this whole mess of issues as voting for promises

                    Yes, voters sell their votes for a promise, and they are told to reduce their expectations so the same promise can be made for reelection.

                    "fiscal conservatism" and "austerity" may differ by degree, but not in principle. One just makes the other appear more palatable. What happened in Greece and Cyprus was outright theft of government assets by the banks, pretty much what other "free trade" agreements are doing to the rest of the world.

                    --
                    Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @05:31PM (3 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @05:31PM (#635596) Journal

                      Yes, voters sell their votes for a promise, and they are told to reduce their expectations so the same promise can be made for reelection.

                      Ok, what is supposed to be the problem with that? Sounds like the expectations are made more realistic in that case.

                      What happened in Greece and Cyprus was outright theft of government assets by the banks

                      And if it had gone the other way, it would have been theft of bank assets by those governments. Those governments have been borrowing money for a long time in bad faith and the banks had been lending in a similar bad faith. The best solution would have been for both sides to take a haircut. Have those countries go into austerity but with a portion of the loans forgiven at the expense of the banks.

                      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday February 09 2018, @05:43PM (2 children)

                        by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday February 09 2018, @05:43PM (#635603) Journal

                        Ok, what is supposed to be the problem with that?

                        I am merely pointing out why corrupt politicians keep their jobs. It is the voters who keep them there for their own personal reasons, yet try to pass blame when things go wrong. That is the objective reality that was sarcastically being 'denied' that I was commenting on, and some people seem to have some doubts, and I am asking why they would deny some of the most obvious things about nature.

                        --
                        Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @06:19PM (1 child)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @06:19PM (#635629) Journal
                          And I'm merely pointing out that managing expectations is a trait of an effective politician not necessarily a corrupt one.
                          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday February 09 2018, @06:49PM

                            by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday February 09 2018, @06:49PM (#635647) Journal

                            Well, you're right. In absolute terms, "corruption" is a poor choice of words, taken from a non-neutral viewpoint. Maybe I sent a mixed message. I am really targeting the people who complain about politicians and the "system" in general. It is no more "corrupt" than they are.

                            --
                            Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:43PM (6 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:43PM (#635259) Journal

        I've been doing this crazy voting thing about 50 years, and I've never met anyone paid to vote, offer me money to vote, offer anyone I know money to vote, heard of any bids.

        I have. Anyone who votes to protect funds they receive from government, be it health care payouts, Social Security, a government funding stream, etc has been successfully paid to vote.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:55AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:55AM (#635349)

          Oh please, spare me. That's 100% of population. Of course people vote based on their (perceived) self interest. Some vote for social programs, some vote for tax cuts and military, some vote for religion...

          What's your problem anyway? I though self-interest was the holy grail of you Randian assholes. When it's other people's self-interest, now it's suddenly immoral and unfair? Boo-fucking-hoo.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @05:34PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @05:34PM (#635599) Journal

            Of course people vote based on their (perceived) self interest.

            The point here is that the future of their democracy is also in their self interest. But these programs create a conflict of interest where people are voting for the swag rather than a well operating and low corruption government.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @06:00PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @06:00PM (#635616) Journal

            When it's other people's self-interest, now it's suddenly immoral and unfair?

            You should try to understand libertarianism first. The problem here isn't that other people have self-interest, but instead that they are using the power of government to further their self-interest at the expense of many other people and the future of their country. Libertarians don't do that.

            For example, we have the sorry spectacle of a considerable portion of the developing world sacrificing the future of its youth just so the older generations can have a more comfortable retirement.

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday February 09 2018, @07:01AM (2 children)

          by aristarchus (2645) on Friday February 09 2018, @07:01AM (#635428) Journal

          Just because you have voted to protect your government contract, that does not mean everyone with a government contract does the same, khallow. Some actually provide the bid for service at the highest quality and the lowest cost. So who is your uncle that keeps you on the government tit? My god, I have known so many of these types, people with DOD positions, because they were related to high ranking officers, even though they were mentally deficient, much like the aforementioned khallow, and Ethanol_fueled. Affirmative action, y'all? So, who are your relatives, khallow? We all know you could not have gotten your job based on your native intelligence.

          --
          You are currently banned from moderating. The last day of your ban is 2022-03-25.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @08:52AM (1 child)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @08:52AM (#635449) Journal

            Some actually provide the bid for service at the highest quality and the lowest cost.

            Sounds like you've been hitting the pixie dust a bit much. But sure, I agree, there are situations where there is only one bidder and hence, trivially, the bid is highest quality and lowest cost available. It also happens to be lowest quality and highest cost, but hey, it's not my money anymore once the taxman taketh.

            So who is your uncle that keeps you on the government tit? My god, I have known so many of these types, people with DOD positions, because they were related to high ranking officers, even though they were mentally deficient, much like the aforementioned khallow, and Ethanol_fueled.

            And I thought I was triggered! I'm also still on the fence as to whether you are EF or not.

            We all know you could not have gotten your job based on your native intelligence.

            Interesting that you have moved on to purely imaginary personal attacks. Very classy.

            I remain concerned that you'll leave us in our hour of need. Who will waste our time in the future once you're gone? Does that mean EF will leave us too?

            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday February 09 2018, @09:11AM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Friday February 09 2018, @09:11AM (#635456) Journal

              I remain concerned that you'll leave us in our hour of need.

              You have been saying this for years now, khallow. It is about as accurate at your other predictions, and as truthful as your assertions in this particular instance, which, by the way, is way off topic. Personal attacks? You weasel, you.

              --
              You are currently banned from moderating. The last day of your ban is 2022-03-25.
      • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday February 09 2018, @05:46PM

        by Freeman (732) on Friday February 09 2018, @05:46PM (#635605) Journal

        The biggest thing I heard about from Liberal voters when Obama was running and in Office was how great "Obamacare" would be. It was going to give everyone health insurance and would reduce costs! Very soon after "Obamacare" went it effect, magically we had a significant bump Up in cost of health insurance. I also didn't hear much touting of how awesome "Obamacare" was from them, either.

        You can say, No one offers Me money to vote, but you would be wrong. The Politicans Promise, better wages, hand-outs to the needy, etc. Yes, I support helping those in need. No, I don't think we should make it so that the Only way to get by for some people is to have more children, so they can get that extra money. You know, so they can spend it on needed things like Cigarettes and Beer.

        Sure, you're not literally paid money by some shady guy in an alley for your vote. That doesn't mean politicians haven't been buying votes.

        The most interesting example I can think of is Davy Crockett. When he was running against someone, he would talk first, then invite everyone out to the bar, before the other guy could speak. Quite nearly, literally, buying their votes. Apparently, this wasn't a novelty in the era, either. https://johncashon.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/davy-crockett-and-the-coon-skin-trick/comment-page-1/ [wordpress.com]

        --
        Forced Microsoft Account for Windows Login → Switch to Linux.
      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday February 09 2018, @06:15PM

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday February 09 2018, @06:15PM (#635623) Journal

        Lets face it, you've made a fake assertion.

        Did I really [jsonline.com]??

        Gee! I feel so very sorry!

        --
        Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday February 08 2018, @03:20PM (2 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @03:20PM (#634946) Journal

    there is no such thing as objective reality,

    1. Some people say the sun rises in the East. Others say in the West. The truth lies probably somewhere in between. Or, we should give both opinions equal weight.

    2. There are no absolutes! Absolutely no absolutes! So you can't be sure of anything.

    3. There are people who believe he earth is flat. They are deeply misguided and wrong. In reality the earth is a disc with mountains and valleys, a non-smooth (eg, non-flat) surface. The sun, moon and stars revolve in a circle above the disk. Gravity is an illusion also. It is actually acceleration at 9.8 meters / second ^ 2. The disc is on the back of an infinite stack of turtles. The final turtle of that infinite stack is propelled by a rocket at 9.8 m/s^2 using a perpetual motion machine.

    --
    Employers should not mandate wearing clothing. It should be a personal choice. It only affects me. Junk can't breathe!
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:42PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:42PM (#634998)

      YES! This is why we need the certainty of religious doctrine.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:29PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:29PM (#635094) Journal

        I sense you are sarcastic, so you might instead settle for the comforting certainty of Fox News. (Surely that isn't religious doctrine.)

        Apart from that, there certainly do seem to be objective facts in the world.

        --
        Employers should not mandate wearing clothing. It should be a personal choice. It only affects me. Junk can't breathe!
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:55PM (9 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:55PM (#635013)

    there is no such thing as objective reality

    It should be pointed out that that idea is and has always been a friend to every totalitarian regime that has ever existed. For instance, the Soviets functioned on that for decades with completely fraudulent reporting about everything and science based on nonsense like Lamarckism.

    There is objective reality. You can determine its condition and its rules by science, careful study, reason, etc. And if you don't, you will be susceptible to liars everywhere.

    --
    The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
    • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:38PM (6 children)

      by meustrus (4961) on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:38PM (#635182)

      Please excuse me for going off-topic here, but I'm rather curious about something.

      I dove into some biology articles following a previous story about epigenetics, and found myself confused about Lamarckism. Not as to whether it had any merit; I am not a biologist and do not claim to make any judgements as to the merit of one man's work over another's.

      No, what was confusing was the extent to which the authors wanted to make damned sure nobody thought that epigenetics even smelled like Lamarckism. Given that the overall summary of it was the idea that individual organisms make adaptations to their environments, and that those adaptations are heritable, all that I can assume is that I'm missing something.

      I know genetics doesn't work like that, and that adaptive pressure applied to generations of individuals with randomized collections of phenomes is an explanation that better matches reality. But if we can inherit behavioral, social, and apparently even gene methylation patterns, how is that fundamentally not Lamarckian? And why is it so damned important that I understand the distinction?

      My guess is that the answer lies in a combination of political history and the details of Lamarck's conclusions. I'm hoping you can provide some answers, Thexalon, since you have invoked the name and clearly hold the same opinion as to its validity.

      --
      If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:37PM

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:37PM (#635255)

        "Lamarckism" was a mostly honest attempt to provide a mechanism for variation and heredity before it was accepted that those things were anything outside the realm of God. Lamarck ended up of course being mostly wrong, although some of his idea lives on as epigenetics. The reason that so many in the field are so adamant about separating themselves from Lamarck is that his ideas were almost invariably misrepresented to further personal agendas, for instance the example of Lysenkoism given by the AC below your post.
        If you're curious about the subject and want to fill a few holes in your knowledge, the book Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution by Maitland A. Edey and Donald C. Johansen gives a nice history in layman's terms of how the idea of evolution evolved (although they occasionally bog down in "dialogues" attempting to hammer down a point - a minor personal gripe - for one who needs it that probably helps a great deal). The book is almost worth it for the last chapter alone.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @05:50PM (4 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @05:50PM (#635608) Journal

        No, what was confusing was the extent to which the authors wanted to make damned sure nobody thought that epigenetics even smelled like Lamarckism.

        As Joe Desertrat indicated, what they really were doing was making sure their theory didn't smell like Lysenkoism.

        But if we can inherit behavioral, social, and apparently even gene methylation patterns, how is that fundamentally not Lamarckian?

        First thing to note here is that gene methylation is actually the most credible example of potential epigenetics inheritance. Those others are based on some very weak science.

        Further, just because a change has occurred in a child organism due to epigenetics doesn't mean that it is an inherited trait. Those can be merely environmental as well with future generations unaffected by the change.

        Finally, Lamarckism is a theory about overall genetic inheritance, not merely the inheritance of a small number of traits. We know it's not true in general.

        • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday February 12 2018, @07:23PM (3 children)

          by meustrus (4961) on Monday February 12 2018, @07:23PM (#636790)

          First thing to note here is that gene methylation is actually the most credible example of potential epigenetics inheritance. Those others are based on some very weak science.

          I thought that the inheritance of behavioral and social traits was self-evident, and hadn't thought much about what science may have been done on the topic. I might be thinking more of language and education, which aren't normally considered "inherited" characteristics but which I believe behave in a profoundly evolutionary manner. Not that I was suggesting that any of this is biologically encoded rather than learned throughout an organism's lifetime.

          --
          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 13 2018, @02:21AM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 13 2018, @02:21AM (#636942) Journal
            Now that you described how these evolve, what does this have to do with Lamarckism? The classic example was speculation about giraffes, that giraffes got those long necks because some animal had to stretch its neck to eat leaves. Then that need to stretch the neck (rather than Darwism's counterview that giraffes with longer necks were the survivors) became an inherited characteristic with children having longer necks as a result and eventually ending up at present where apparently there is no further need to stretch the neck longer.

            The cultural analogue might be immigrants from some part of the equatorial regions who don't celebrate any sort of winter holiday move to the Arctic Circle and start celebrating Christmas. Does that mean that there are genetic changes in any subsequent children as a result to celebrate Christmas better?
            • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday February 13 2018, @02:52PM (1 child)

              by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday February 13 2018, @02:52PM (#637118)

              Of course it doesn't mean genetic change. But given Lamarck's time in history I really doubt any of it had to do with genetics.

              The profound difference is, as you say, that adaptation during an organism's life is passed down to offspring rather than randomized variations resulting in different biology that win out over generations of natural selection. The question is: does the evolution of knowledge more often follow the former pattern or the latter? How often do we humans get it right and pass the truth on to our children, and how often do we just generate a huge number of hypotheses for only a few correct ones to survive?

              --
              If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 13 2018, @03:20PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 13 2018, @03:20PM (#637136) Journal

                Of course it doesn't mean genetic change. But given Lamarck's time in history I really doubt any of it had to do with genetics.

                To the contrary, it does. Lamarck and Darwin didn't know how traits were stored in the organism, but they were quite able to speculate on how those traits were passed on.

                The question is: does the evolution of knowledge more often follow the former pattern or the latter?

                It follows neither pattern. The key difference is that knowledge can become greatly modified over the course of a single human's lifespan (even in the days before civilization and the potential for massive technological progress) and can be passed on by a variety of means other than inheritance. Meanwhile inherited biological traits remain very similar as they are passed on. The genetics of a grandchild is not very different from that of the grandmother, but the knowledge and beliefs can be very different and come from sources other than the grandchild's ancestors.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:14PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:14PM (#635204)
      Lamarckism? Try Lysenkoism [wikipedia.org]. This pseudoscience, which unfortunately fit Soviet ideology closely, actually resulted in the deaths of millions in the Soviet Union due to famine because it was the basis for their misguided agricultural policy.
    • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday February 09 2018, @10:05AM

      by Wootery (2341) on Friday February 09 2018, @10:05AM (#635459)

      I'm guessing you didn't read the rest of my comment.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:45PM (#635153)

    Yes yes, there is no such thing as objective reality,

    Sure there is; there is no gender pay gap and only two genders. Yet we frequently see fake news from the mainstream left claiming otherwise.