This conversation reminds me of the ST:TNG episode, Darmok.
Slightly off topic, but I'll redirect:
Silliness aside, I can relate to a lot of what Joao has been saying. I do not think the opinion is inherently wrong, or maybe even the approach taken to create that opinion. But I do see problems in not going farther past the opinion on the assumption that there is nothing more to learn on the subject. I also kind of respect the analogies and philosophical arguments but again, they are not going farther past a line of assumption in my opinion. That can be dangerous.
When I was in college, I was a painting major. Our professors would tell us to research the many periods of art history and the individual artists that created whatever style or philosophy that defined those periods. It was a chore for me because I simply did not care about the history of art. I did not care about how flat two-dimensional representations eventually led to the awareness of perspective and how an artist could manipulate elements of a painting to suggest a sense of depth. I did not care how World War II connected to Abstract Expressionism. I did not care about Cubism. I just wanted to make stuff that I found interesting. I did NOT want to understand how one movement influenced another throughout history, leading to where we were in that moment in time. I did not want its influence on my own work. I remember arguing with a professor about this. My view at the time was that I did not mind "reinventing the wheel" so long as that wheel was mine. I could be proud and know that I created it, even if that wheel had been created before.
I did not recognize the value of carrying forward the ideas already established through history. My view was for myself and selfish, instead of recognizing the bigger picture of not just my place in history, but how history has already laid so many foundations and standards to build on top of. That was fine, if I only wanted to paint for myself. And I could apply my judgments onto my own work and philosophies. As long as I lived in a cave (so to speak), then that was fine. The problem was though, in how I interacted with the world around me. I projected my personal and very subjective standards on everything around me, assuming that everything around me used the same standards. That was not true.
History has already done the hard work in discovery, deciding what works and what doesn't, and in defining the ever-evolving understanding of the world around us. Sure, I could ignore all of that and just do for myself as I saw fit, but just because I chose to dismiss all that had already come before me did not mean that all that had come before was wrong. I just chose not to accept it.
I kind of of feel that may be what is happening here too. Using the Galileo example earlier, it should be noted that society had a VERY limited and different view of their world than we do of ours today. That society used faith to explain their understanding of their world. Today, we have math and science to help us understand the world we live in. History has developed and corrected our perception over time through measurable tools of observation with math and science. And education provides at least the capability of a basic level of understanding for all regarding those standards of observation. Whether we choose to use or ignore that education is one thing, but ignoring those established and proven standards does not invalidate them. Granted, there are mistakes. The great thing about science is that it is designed to be tested to be proven as true, proven as false, or proven as a possibility with some corrections to make the science more true than it was yesterday---as we learn better ways of observation and measurement. That is the evolution of our understanding!
Similarly, we can apply that relationship to news and our view of the world, and of those providing news of that world. Do we take it for face value that it must be true? Why would we do that? Shouldn't we question it? Validate it? Should we outright dimiss it? I mean to dismiss all of news regardless of source, just because some cases can be proven to be false on an anecdotal level is only halfway there. Society can and should validate it and correct it, if necessary. That exists! If you want to argue that news is not true for you, then I don't think there is much argument to be offered to persuade you differently. However, to state that news is just not true because there is no truth does not at all take into account history, human evolution, our ability to question our observations, or our capacity to redirect and correct our observations when found wrong.
I agree that media is greatly affected by money and corporation influence. That then logically would/could/may already be trickling down affecting news coverage. It does seem that opinion and talk "news" is more appealing and profitable to advertisers. Conflict is fun and we all want to draw lines for what side we stand on. It gives us something to be part of which can be very tempting. But this moment is but a blip in the overall history of humanity. Drawing assumptions and judgments on this one moment in time may be fair, in and of itself; but applying that judgment to justify believing that truth really doesn't exist completely ignores everything that has already been established in our past and everything that could be learned and corrected in our future. That type of opinion is not grounded in science, by testing, disproving, and correcting one's opinion. Instead, it is simply based in faith of one's own opinion by willfully choosing to ignore the tools available to gain a fuller perspective on the world. Truthfully, that is no different than the society Galileo opposed, all believing in their own faith that the earth was the center of the known universe.
=\
Slightly off topic, but I'll redirect:
Silliness aside, I can relate to a lot of what Joao has been saying. I do not think the opinion is inherently wrong, or maybe even the approach taken to create that opinion. But I do see problems in not going farther past the opinion on the assumption that there is nothing more to learn on the subject. I also kind of respect the analogies and philosophical arguments but again, they are not going farther past a line of assumption in my opinion. That can be dangerous.
When I was in college, I was a painting major. Our professors would tell us to research the many periods of art history and the individual artists that created whatever style or philosophy that defined those periods. It was a chore for me because I simply did not care about the history of art. I did not care about how flat two-dimensional representations eventually led to the awareness of perspective and how an artist could manipulate elements of a painting to suggest a sense of depth. I did not care how World War II connected to Abstract Expressionism. I did not care about Cubism. I just wanted to make stuff that I found interesting. I did NOT want to understand how one movement influenced another throughout history, leading to where we were in that moment in time. I did not want its influence on my own work. I remember arguing with a professor about this. My view at the time was that I did not mind "reinventing the wheel" so long as that wheel was mine. I could be proud and know that I created it, even if that wheel had been created before.
I did not recognize the value of carrying forward the ideas already established through history. My view was for myself and selfish, instead of recognizing the bigger picture of not just my place in history, but how history has already laid so many foundations and standards to build on top of. That was fine, if I only wanted to paint for myself. And I could apply my judgments onto my own work and philosophies. As long as I lived in a cave (so to speak), then that was fine. The problem was though, in how I interacted with the world around me. I projected my personal and very subjective standards on everything around me, assuming that everything around me used the same standards. That was not true.
History has already done the hard work in discovery, deciding what works and what doesn't, and in defining the ever-evolving understanding of the world around us. Sure, I could ignore all of that and just do for myself as I saw fit, but just because I chose to dismiss all that had already come before me did not mean that all that had come before was wrong. I just chose not to accept it.
I kind of of feel that may be what is happening here too. Using the Galileo example earlier, it should be noted that society had a VERY limited and different view of their world than we do of ours today. That society used faith to explain their understanding of their world. Today, we have math and science to help us understand the world we live in. History has developed and corrected our perception over time through measurable tools of observation with math and science. And education provides at least the capability of a basic level of understanding for all regarding those standards of observation. Whether we choose to use or ignore that education is one thing, but ignoring those established and proven standards does not invalidate them. Granted, there are mistakes. The great thing about science is that it is designed to be tested to be proven as true, proven as false, or proven as a possibility with some corrections to make the science more true than it was yesterday---as we learn better ways of observation and measurement. That is the evolution of our understanding!
Similarly, we can apply that relationship to news and our view of the world, and of those providing news of that world. Do we take it for face value that it must be true? Why would we do that? Shouldn't we question it? Validate it? Should we outright dimiss it? I mean to dismiss all of news regardless of source, just because some cases can be proven to be false on an anecdotal level is only halfway there. Society can and should validate it and correct it, if necessary. That exists! If you want to argue that news is not true for you, then I don't think there is much argument to be offered to persuade you differently. However, to state that news is just not true because there is no truth does not at all take into account history, human evolution, our ability to question our observations, or our capacity to redirect and correct our observations when found wrong.
I agree that media is greatly affected by money and corporation influence. That then logically would/could/may already be trickling down affecting news coverage. It does seem that opinion and talk "news" is more appealing and profitable to advertisers. Conflict is fun and we all want to draw lines for what side we stand on. It gives us something to be part of which can be very tempting. But this moment is but a blip in the overall history of humanity. Drawing assumptions and judgments on this one moment in time may be fair, in and of itself; but applying that judgment to justify believing that truth really doesn't exist completely ignores everything that has already been established in our past and everything that could be learned and corrected in our future. That type of opinion is not grounded in science, by testing, disproving, and correcting one's opinion. Instead, it is simply based in faith of one's own opinion by willfully choosing to ignore the tools available to gain a fuller perspective on the world. Truthfully, that is no different than the society Galileo opposed, all believing in their own faith that the earth was the center of the known universe.
=\
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel
"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel
"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel
"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel
"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear