 Djiezes says: There are far too many false controversies in the American public discourse, which are not so elsewhere. There is a difference between Ethical statements, Factual statements, Convention statements and Taste statements. Many of the current debates are treated by the media as if they were Ethical, Convention or Taste statements, although they really are Factual statements. In other words, many policy debates, which should rely on readily available empirical information are treated as if they were matters of mere opinion. And all opinions are equal. That is OK. The truth always wins eventually. The only problem anyone could possibly have with the status-quo is if they really are not interested in the truth. It is to be expected that those without the facts on their side would be uncomfortable with disagreement. The truth is also found on the side that is more open to discuss the issue. Those attempting to quell the facts and discussion are usually the liars. I see the comments in this clip as an emboldened stance in attempting to propagandize and establish a segment of those that are not worthy to be heard based on some established "authority". "[i]In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasonin... willhelm said:I think I missed something. The article is a nice look into the psychology of a media consumer and how the he-said/she-said model of journalism skews the public opinion towards the pseudo-scientific side of any manufactured controversy, by providing false balance between the scientific consensus and either a couple of cranks or a powerful lobby.This is interesting. This can be viewed as truth by either side of the "manufactured controversy." It is easier to propagandize when information is passed through a politically correct filter, which is basically what this clip is all about - shutting out facts based on filter of "authority" - which is fallacious in any typical argument, but used here to try to win one. This is because the alarmists have little science on which to stand, their evidence is faltering, and the facts are against them. They have no choice but to establish an "authority" and increase the escoteric nature of the subject. Carl Sagan (of all people) actually discussed this tatic in his book Demon Haunted World. |
View the Top Clips from September 7, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
