SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Oft times we see accusations of "group think" here on SoylentNews. Now there is some actual science on the formation and function of "echo chambers", as reported by SESYNC:
A new study from researchers at the University of Maryland (UMD) and the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) demonstrates that the highly contentious debate on climate change is fueled in part by how information flows throughout policy networks.
...
"Our research shows how the echo chamber can block progress toward a political resolution on climate change. Individuals who get their information from the same sources with the same perspective may be under the impression that theirs is the dominant perspective, regardless of what the science says," said Dr. Dana R. Fisher, a professor of sociology at UMD and corresponding author who led the research.
I would guess, based on this study abstract (actual paper unfortunately behind paywall), that SoylentNews is in no danger of becoming an echo chamber, but we seem to have some refugees who are still stuck in particular bubbles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @01:23PM
If coming to the "right" conclusion depends upon background knowledge in any way then it is subjective. Different "subjects" will have had different past experiences and thus beliefs, although in some cases these differences may be negligible.
Subjective is not a dirty word like you appear to have been trained to think. Denying the use of past experiences while interpreting information can only lead to confusion and error. It is a key part of rational behavior.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday May 30 2015, @01:01AM
Background knowledge isn't in itself subjective either. A coroner's report on cause of death is rarely subjective but it certainly requires background knowledge. Experience can lead to an appropriate conclusion more quickly through short cuts, but as long as the conclusion can then be shown to properly arise from the facts at hand, it remains (or becomes) objective. I certainly wouldn't advise denying their knowledge and experience.
I see a dog across the street. I called it a dog rather than a giraffe, not because I believe giraffe is a dirty word, but because that's not what I see (for one thing, it's neck is too short :-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:45AM
I cannot imagine what leads you to think this other than lack of experience. Do you have a reference for that claim?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday May 30 2015, @06:15AM
Ever read a coroner's report? Some are cursory, some are in depth, but none involve the subjective. They describe the condition of the decadent, any remarkable findings, any witness reports and any known conditions surrounding the death. They then describe the death based on those findings. The latter is often identified as opinion since there are often too many unknowns to be more than 90% or so certain.
Where do you find the subjective? Where is the part about what it "feels" like the decedent is trying to tell the examiner? Where do you find the stuff that nobody else could have observed had they sat in on the autopsy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @09:06AM
Here is my claim "interpreting data is subjective"