Why are fake news and conspiracy theories so toxic?
A point that Habermas continues to insist on is that truth is tied to the world which exists independently of us: Reaching understanding cannot function unless the participants refer to a single objective world, thereby stabilizing the intersubjectively shared public space with which everything that is merely subjective can be contrasted.
This supposition of an objective world that is independent of our descriptions fulfills a functional requirement of our processes of cooperation and communication. Without this supposition, everyday practices, which rest on the (in a certain sense) Platonic distinction between believing and knowing unreservedly, would come apart at the seams.
(adapted from: Pragmatism: An Introduction . By Michael Bacon)
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button."Aeon" posted an interesting article on the history of conspiracy theories, a form of Fake News: [aeon.co]
Within the workings, impacts, of fake news there is the concept of its having behavioral consequences, creating actions, such as those of the fool who took his weapon into the D.C. pizzeria, convinced that Hillary, and the Dems., were trafficking children from its basement! Thus, there is an issue of responsibility regarding one's acceptance of news, of whatever nature, actually.
Daniel DeNicola, in "Understanding Ignorance- The Surprising Impact of What We Don't Know," dives into ignorance, including willful ignorance, the type that tends to boggle my mind. A major thesis in the book is that ignorance and knowledge are intricately intertwined...in many ways.
BirdMan1
Level 8
Nov 23, 2019
0
Are they always toxic? What do you mean by toxic? How can there be a single objective world when objectivity is a function of perception? We perceive of only a tiny part of the objective world depending on our sensors; this might not be the same as the part that others see.
amymcmxcii
Level 6
Oct 12, 2019
2
The dictionary offers more than one definition of “objectivity.” One refers to the way we observe, and another refers to the thing observed. Of course there are no absolutes to be found in objectivity of either kind (or anywhere else) but one thing we can say with some confidence is that the objective world is qualitatively different from the subjective world in this one way: it reliably presents the same face to every observer. Now, obviously, every observer may interpret that presentation differently, but at that point, you’re back in the subjective. Whether the objective world is absolute or not, it behaves observably differently from the subjective world, and so rightly earns a classification of its own, no matter what we name it.
Verbiage from Germany ignores the facts....so the 1st label is the lie " conspiracy theory " 18 years ago 2 airplanes DID NOT "melt" 3 WTC TOWERS all 3 were rigged for detonation years before and the lie is believed and the Building 7 imploded 9 hours after the first kamikaze air pirates flew into the first tower... .given a billion xians think 3=1 geebush jeehobah ghostholes = the one true only gawd the same gullible idiots BELIEVE only 2 towers came crashing down in their hatred of ALLAH AK BAR muslims AND THEY BRAND the fact of a 3rd building in NYC WORLD TRADE CENTRE crashing down is too much information to fit their religion
@skado I take your point, but the objective world is not monolithic. We each see such a small part of it that it may as well be called subjective. A person can be a loyal employee, a womaniser, a loving parent, a chronic drunk driver, a gifted musician, a spendthrift, and an animal lover simultaneously. All of that, and more, falls into the realm of objective reality. Which of these is the "real" objective reality? Which of these do we focus on to come to useful conclusions. How do we choose if not subjectively?
@amymcmxcii
True enough, but objectivity doesn’t imply simplicity. All of those things may be objectively true at once, and coming to useful conclusions about complex issues may be difficult or impossible, but whatever is, still is. That’s why we invented a strict methodology for inquiry, right? To deal with that complex relationship between verifiable fact and human bias?
Yes! An objective reference point outside ourselves is the foundation for democracy, peace, progress, and the survival of our species (although objectivity alone may not be enough).
skado
Level 9
Oct 12, 2019
0
That is true. Objectivity is the first step on the road but objectively will change as new ideas are included in the mix which have different interpreter values, and subjectivity takes a hold again.
One Vision is the utopian ideal but one man’s utopia is another’s dysfunction.
Recent Visitors 28
yvilletom
CA, USA
Rencontres
Chevy Chase,
Bousset
NM, USA
SeanMoore
Canada
wonderandlisten
Central Indiana,
Photos
Posted by JettyPerspective
Posted by PontifexMarximusWhy Evolution Is True … I never realised that there was still so much opposition to science. [livescience.com]
Posted by NR92What is the reason to live? What are we living for?
Posted by NR92Is it correct that Nietzsche was Hitler's inspiration?
Posted by mzeeWhat is fear?
Posted by DonaldHRobertsThe Most Complicated question ever asked. WHY?
Posted by TheMiddleWayRussel, the greatest salesman the world has ever known!