I am really appreciating these topics, they should be part of Epistemology courses, as a good Epistemology course can offer more than just the standard views regarding the nature of knowledge, answers to skepticism and the nature of perception and so on, they can also offer a way to direct one's own epistemic practices towards what is true in all sorts of areas one cares about outside of the abstractions of some philosophy, morality and politics being most important, and this course is providing that.
I feel like I must be misunderstanding something here... isn't there an irreconcilable gap between the claim that our attention "escapes our sovereignty" and the subsequest suggestion that a solution to growing post-truth politics is to be more discerning with our social response to it? It seems to me that at a certain 'critical mass', particularly in the age of social media, the citizenry who resonate with post-truth politics create a sort of self-sustaining and self-selecting bubble. If attention is grabbed unwillingly, those who deem truth as dispensable are essentially engaging and amplifying unwillingly, no?... The bubble isn't arbitrary either; it shares a sort of vague ideology. It seems to me that trying to 'ignore' your way out of post-truth politics feels similar to ignoring a growing tumour.
I think the best option of how we treat the idea of 'truth' for the sake of politics, is to create via consensus, a standard of evidence and rightness (a standard of truth). And then define truth as 'that which is aligned with the standard of truth', which is simply a decision by us for us. The only reason we don't do this is it's too computationally expensive to even gather any good data because you'd have to circumvent our ability to deceive, joke, exaggerate etc...
Thanks for share these series of videos. I was wondering: grabbing attention is one thing, but once you have the attention, there must be something that pulls a person towards supporting a politician that doesnt give a damn about standard of truth. With the attention it could go either way, is there still something in perhaps the desires of people that would make them support the lying politician?
Yes, so the model suggested by Chouraqui works with attention and desire. Of course what these desires are and how they get constructed is enormously complicated! One worrisome phenomenon is that sometimes the desire just seems to be 'annoying the other side'. (In my estimation, a fair amount of Twitter posts fall in this category!)
Epistemology as a discipline has been paying more and more attention to issues such as these, actually. Arguably, this picks up trends that were already there in Plato and Aristotle (e.g., their thinking about the sophists).
Politicians are not here to tell the truth in countries where imbecility and selfish interests are predominant. First, the modern politician has to know what to say in order to make his promises believed by the majority, and secundly how to be attractive to the media and their owners, mainly by making himself able to push up their audience. For instance, a truth speaker like Kant would lead any modern political party to its ruin.
I wonder what President Trump when he said he'd make Mexico pay for the wall. Maybe he thought he could sell some products or services to that country to recoup the wall's cost. Since Trump is no longer pro-life, I'll need to vote for another presidential candidate in November 2024. Meanwhile, I try to interpret his comment charitably.
Lieing was never a weakness in politics but the basis for giving people hope. I dont think Trump's problem is that he tells lies. Its the fact that he knows the media personally and how they manipulate the electorate.
If I were suddenly magically transporters to the US and given the right to vote, I'd face some tough choices, I think, being placed in a very different political culture as well as a totally different voting system. (The Netherlands has fairly strict proportional representation.) Clearly many central ideas of the Republican party are completely out there from a European perspective (e.g., guns, religion). But this particular video is actually not about left or right at all. There is, as far as I can see, no sense in which the left is immune to post-truth politicians.
Victor ... I love your lectures but this one turns me off. If you want to talk about the post-Truth world and its impact on epidemiology you should start with a much, much better exemplar. For example, the origins of SARS-CoV2 ... or the JFK assassination .. or the reality of the UAP phenomenon ... or pseudoscientific string theory.
While all those have political aspects, they would be more immediately relevant to a video on conspiracy theories, or on science vs pseudoscience. The term post-truth is used more to talk about public figures who seem to longer be held accountable for lies and fantasies. Of the post-truth politicians, Trump is globally the best known, so it seems to me that he's the obvious example to use.
I am really appreciating these topics, they should be part of Epistemology courses, as a good Epistemology course can offer more than just the standard views regarding the nature of knowledge, answers to skepticism and the nature of perception and so on, they can also offer a way to direct one's own epistemic practices towards what is true in all sorts of areas one cares about outside of the abstractions of some philosophy, morality and politics being most important, and this course is providing that.
I feel like I must be misunderstanding something here... isn't there an irreconcilable gap between the claim that our attention "escapes our sovereignty" and the subsequest suggestion that a solution to growing post-truth politics is to be more discerning with our social response to it? It seems to me that at a certain 'critical mass', particularly in the age of social media, the citizenry who resonate with post-truth politics create a sort of self-sustaining and self-selecting bubble. If attention is grabbed unwillingly, those who deem truth as dispensable are essentially engaging and amplifying unwillingly, no?...
The bubble isn't arbitrary either; it shares a sort of vague ideology. It seems to me that trying to 'ignore' your way out of post-truth politics feels similar to ignoring a growing tumour.
I think the best option of how we treat the idea of 'truth' for the sake of politics, is to create via consensus, a standard of evidence and rightness (a standard of truth).
And then define truth as 'that which is aligned with the standard of truth', which is simply a decision by us for us.
The only reason we don't do this is it's too computationally expensive to even gather any good data because you'd have to circumvent our ability to deceive, joke, exaggerate etc...
Personally what I like about it is knowingly being lied to. Gives me a good chuckle at the end of the day.
Is this the last one from the lecture series?
I don't think so, he tends to post 1-2 times a month, so maybe there a final, or this is the last -- I hope not though!
Thanks for share these series of videos.
I was wondering: grabbing attention is one thing, but once you have the attention, there must be something that pulls a person towards supporting a politician that doesnt give a damn about standard of truth. With the attention it could go either way, is there still something in perhaps the desires of people that would make them support the lying politician?
Yes, so the model suggested by Chouraqui works with attention and desire. Of course what these desires are and how they get constructed is enormously complicated! One worrisome phenomenon is that sometimes the desire just seems to be 'annoying the other side'. (In my estimation, a fair amount of Twitter posts fall in this category!)
Is the Chouraqui article you refer to 'Post truth politics and the paradox of power'?
No, it's still under review, so not yet published.
I would rather say we experience an era of emotional-dogmatic politics (post-truth) instead of a sceptic (reasonable).
These videos are straying further away from epistemology proper but they are very enlightening.
Epistemology as a discipline has been paying more and more attention to issues such as these, actually. Arguably, this picks up trends that were already there in Plato and Aristotle (e.g., their thinking about the sophists).
Politicians are not here to tell the truth in countries where imbecility and selfish interests are predominant. First, the modern politician has to know what to say in order to make his promises believed by the majority, and secundly how to be attractive to the media and their owners, mainly by making himself able to push up their audience. For instance, a truth speaker like Kant would lead any modern political party to its ruin.
I wonder what President Trump when he said he'd make Mexico pay for the wall. Maybe he thought he could sell some products or services to that country to recoup the wall's cost. Since Trump is no longer pro-life, I'll need to vote for another presidential candidate in November 2024. Meanwhile, I try to interpret his comment charitably.
Lieing was never a weakness in politics but the basis for giving people hope. I dont think Trump's problem is that he tells lies. Its the fact that he knows the media personally and how they manipulate the electorate.
I'm wildly guessing that this teacher wouldn't vote Republican
If I were suddenly magically transporters to the US and given the right to vote, I'd face some tough choices, I think, being placed in a very different political culture as well as a totally different voting system. (The Netherlands has fairly strict proportional representation.) Clearly many central ideas of the Republican party are completely out there from a European perspective (e.g., guns, religion). But this particular video is actually not about left or right at all. There is, as far as I can see, no sense in which the left is immune to post-truth politicians.
10 minutes in and this is coming across as a bit preachy
Victor ... I love your lectures but this one turns me off. If you want to talk about the post-Truth world and its impact on epidemiology you should start with a much, much better exemplar. For example, the origins of SARS-CoV2 ... or the JFK assassination .. or the reality of the UAP phenomenon ... or pseudoscientific string theory.
While all those have political aspects, they would be more immediately relevant to a video on conspiracy theories, or on science vs pseudoscience. The term post-truth is used more to talk about public figures who seem to longer be held accountable for lies and fantasies. Of the post-truth politicians, Trump is globally the best known, so it seems to me that he's the obvious example to use.