Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID and popular culture: What is fake news? Do we believe it?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

What is fake news? Do we actually believe it?Many sources feel that we readily believe fake news. Concern trolls in social sciences are often heard on this point, usually demanding government and corporate action.

Having spent a life in news, I would say that the ability to detect fakery increases with familiarity with the medium, as any magazine rack will show. That’s because human are decision-makers. The humans analyzed are as much decision-makers as the analysts.

Those who think that chickens are just like people, apes are entering the the Stone Age, and rocks have minds probably think that there are “scientific” formulas for getting around the reality of the independence of other people’s minds.

From O’Leary for News (Denyse O’Leary) at MercatorNet:

Fake news is hard to define. Discussions often conflate disinformation, such as Russia’s troll house onslaughts, hoaxes (the Pope supports Trump) and conspiracy claims with inconvenient stories that are well within the accepted bounds of partisan journalism.

The checkout counter’s top-selling magazine advised me last year that Hillary Clinton admits she is an alcoholic. And, in a more recent edition, that she is dying. Post-election, her whole family was said to be going to jail. On December 28, the Globe informed me that Prince Charles will be tried for the murder of Princess Diana because Her Majesty refuses to shield her “evil son” any longer.

Post-election, a news item also popped up beside my Facebook page announcing that Melania Trump was divorcing Donald. But years ago—like everyone else in the checkout queue—I had also ignored the claims that Michelle Obama was divorcing Barack.

No one seems to have noticed any of this turmoil, for years on end, or maybe…? Also,

Analyst Brent Bozell draws our attention to the fact that major media commonly indulge themselves in the equivalent of fake news in the form of speculation and predictions, especially in the New Year period or prior to a political turnover. More.

Fake news actually works very well in mainstream pundit predictions because the analyst is free to choose which factors to count and what weight to give them. That’s harder to do in a post-contest analysis where past events limit our imaginations. But in either case, hearers are free to substitute their own judgment and they usually do.

See also: Part I: What is fake news? Do we believe it?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Silver Asiatic,
ID theory is this: Some aspects of nature give scientific evidence of having been designed by intelligence.
That's a valid scientific proposition given what we know from experience and theory. No problem with that. Many evidences lead to that conclusion. It's obvious from many papers referenced in the threads "Mystery at the heart of life" and "A third way of evolution?". In the latter thread most attempts to advance pseudoscientific ideas on evolution fail to answer the fundamental question "Where's the beef?". :) I said that there are some technical issues that I mentioned above which are not clear to me because they fly above my head. Lots of probabilistic discussions. Also astronomy, quantum physics, the problem of consciousness, etc. That's why sometimes I comment that after y'all conclude your discussions on statistics and probabilities of getting such and such components, you'll have to deal with the enormous functional complexity of the developmental and other spatiotemporal processes which can only arise by design from a scientific perspective. But I don't propose that ID theory, though I may agree with the parts I understand. Hence I can't call myself an ID proponent, though maybe an ID-friendly guy or ID supporter. I don't have a solid opinion on the parts I don't understand. Normally it seems acceptable that people have strong opinions even on things they don't know well. I used to do that too. Now I try to understand before I can draw a conclusion. At least I try. Maybe not completely there yet. :)Dionisio
January 13, 2017
January
01
Jan
13
13
2017
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Dionisio
Please, indicate the post # where I wrote that I don’t accept ID theory.
In post #33 you stated:
ID is a scientific hypothesis or theory. I do agree with some parts of it.
I then asked what parts you don't accept.
Please, indicate the post # where I wrote that.
I put a question mark at the end of each option - I was asking which of those views you hold. I was prompting you for a response -- wondering. ID theory is this: Some aspects of nature give scientific evidence of having been designed by intelligence. I was wondering what part of that you don't agree with. You did explain why you don't consider yourself an ID proponent. I accept your views on that, even though I disagree on your reasons. But regarding ID theory itself, I didn't understand your view on it. I'm certainly not trying to attack you here, so I hope I don't come across that way. I think it's good if we clarify our views and gain more knowledge about ID. After all, we spend some time here on a pro-ID blog so it's worth the effort to understand. If I can convince you to become an ID proponent, that would be a good thing, as I see it. :-)Silver Asiatic
January 13, 2017
January
01
Jan
13
13
2017
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @41:
Dionisio: No, no aspects of nature give scientific evidence of having been designed by intelligence? or is it … No, all aspects of nature give scientific evidence of having been designed by intelligence?
Please, indicate the post # where I wrote that. Thank you. Perhaps I wrote something incorrectly, so I should correct it. Can you quote the text that is not clear?Dionisio
January 13, 2017
January
01
Jan
13
13
2017
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @41,
Well, I don’t think you answered why, precisely, you do not accept ID theory.
Please, indicate the post # where I wrote that I don't accept ID theory. Thank you.Dionisio
January 13, 2017
January
01
Jan
13
13
2017
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Dionisio
Did my comment @35 answer your questions?
Well, I don't think you answered why, precisely, you do not accept ID theory. ID: Some aspects of nature give scientific evidence of having been designed by intelligence. Dionisio: No, no aspects of nature give scientific evidence of having been designed by intelligence? or is it ... No, all aspects of nature give scientific evidence of having been designed by intelligence?Silver Asiatic
January 13, 2017
January
01
Jan
13
13
2017
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Perhaps one reason why there's so much fake news out there is because we -the intended 'consumers' of such news- don't think and don't test everything in order to hold what is good. As we can see even in some of the comments within this thread, we usually don't take serious the contextual meaning of words. We usually don't read carefully every text, trying to understand its exact meaning. Instead we make the text say either more or less than it really means. It's pathetically sad. We don't ask questions. Specially basic fundamental questions. And we don't like to be interrogated. Maybe in part because we lack the humility required to confess that we don't know or that we don't understand? Christ gives us the freedom to confess shamelessly that we don't know or don't understand something someone may ask us. Because what matters at the end of the day is that we know and trust Christ who knows everything. He's the only source if true wisdom.Dionisio
January 13, 2017
January
01
Jan
13
13
2017
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, Did my comment @35 answer your questions? Thank you.Dionisio
January 13, 2017
January
01
Jan
13
13
2017
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
DiEb: Any comments about the post @32? Danke!Dionisio
January 13, 2017
January
01
Jan
13
13
2017
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
DiEb @18:
2. I came to UD via the writings of William Dembski [...]
What exactly in his writings attracted you to this blog? Why? Danke!Dionisio
January 13, 2017
January
01
Jan
13
13
2017
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
DiEb @19:
So, I thank you for your input, as you take an interest in the stats of this thread (2169), it was a welcomed opportunity to verify my numbers.
What's that number 2169? Danke!Dionisio
January 13, 2017
January
01
Jan
13
13
2017
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @34:
[...] ID is merely stating that some aspects of nature give evidence of having been designed by intelligence.
Exactly, that's ID, but to me everything is at least 'as designed' -either directly or indirectly through the effect of designed rules, laws, frameworks, etc. Nothing is out of the Designer's control. Nothing is unexpected or surprising to the Designer. That's far beyond the scientific boundaries the ID hypothesis must remain within. I can't propose a scientific theory or hypothesis because I'm not a scientist, not even remotely, not even in my wildest daydreaming. Michael Behe, Ann Gauger and Doug Axe are scientists. I'm not. It's very simple. If I can't propose a scientific theory or hypothesis then I can't proclaim that I'm a proponent of a scientific theory. However, I still can be friendly to that theory or hypothesis, agreeing with most of it. I don't understand certain statistical parts of the ID discussion, probability calculations, quantum physics, and other issues that sometimes fly over my head. There's a lot of ID-related material in this blog that is above my pay grade. :) Perhaps something I'm missing in the picture is hindering my understanding of what it means to be a proponent of a scientific theory or hypothesis? Maybe. If I haven't been at least in the NASA training program for astronauts I can't claim that I'm a NASA astronaut. Well, I could say it, but it would be a false claim. On top of that, if I were an ID-proponent I would have to restrict my comments about ID in order to keep them within the scientific boundaries. However, currently I don't have that limitation -as long as the management and moderators of this forum allow it. To me Christ is first and last. Alpha and Omega. Everything else is irrelevant when compared to Christ. My life is meaningless without Christ. Actually, Christ is the main reason I'm learning some aspects of biology. Biology is not my professional background. It never was. Perhaps I could have been much more comfortable had I not followed this demanding 'occupation' I've been in lately, which requires so much reading of difficult topics. It's because I was delighting in the Lord that God gave me this irresistible desire to pursue a radically different career path that has required an overwhelming amount of hours studying things I still don't understand. I could have remained doing what I was doing for a number of years. But I would have missed this unbelievable experience of seeing the most amazing complex complexity unfolds before my eyes in an increasing number of research papers that keep shedding light on elaborate molecular and cellular choreographies orchestrated within the biological systems. It would be good to have interactive 4D animation systems that let children and young students see the wonderful intricacies of the biological systems. Perhaps more of them would discover their true vocation and pursue biology-related research careers? Don't know. Just a thought. When I had a brief discussion with a Canadian biology professor in this forum and I was accused of asking dishonest questions, I realized that God has made me experience the meaning of the second part of the first chapter of Paul's first letter to the Christian church congregation in Corinth. Basically an ignorant uneducated nobody like me was lovingly making a university professor to react irrationally against God, not me. The ultimate battle is not physical, but spiritual. I'm on the victorious side because God so decided, even though I don't deserve it. That's amazing grace. That's why all I want to do is to submit my life to my Lord and let Him take care of every situation for me.Dionisio
January 13, 2017
January
01
Jan
13
13
2017
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Dionisio Thanks for your explanations.
ID is a scientific hypothesis or theory.
Yes.
I do agree with some parts of it. Maybe don’t understand other parts of it.
Well, I would hope you agree with some of it. :-) The interesting thing for me is "what do you disagree with"? If you don't understand it, I'd think this blog would be one of the best places to learn -- feel free to ask about whatever you don't understand in ID theory.
ID is about detection of design in certain things.
Yes. Again, my question is what aspects do you not accept, if only part.
But ID – as a science- stops short of identifying the Designer.
By necessity, ID remains within the limits of the scientific discipline. Identity of a designer would necessarily include study of God (as a candidate for designer) and that would be the field of philosophy or theology and not science.
I openly believe that the absolute ultimate reality is defined in the first three verses of the first chapter of the gospel written by John the apostle. That disqualifies me as an ID-proponent.
No, your belief here has no effect on ID since the gospel of John is not a scientific analysis. I would suspect that 90% of Christian ID proponents share your same view.
My identity is in Christ alone. That’s all.
ID is not an identity but just a scientific theory.
A wide spectrum of philosophical and theological worldview positions fit within the definition of ID-proponent.
Yes. The same is true for proponents of any scientific theory.
But someone whose identity is in Christ alone has a worldview that doesn’t fit within those boundaries.
I don't follow you here.
Faith in Christ is not a science, though it is rational. Jesus made everything that exists, visible or invisible. Literally everything, including space and time. The God I worship is not a god of the gaps, but the God of the whole show, as professor John Lennox said.
I believe your mistake here is in thinking that ID is a religious or philosophical theory that would conflict with Christianity. But ID is merely stating that some aspects of nature give evidence of having been designed by intelligence. That's either true or false, no matter what your view of the Bible of other religious belief is.
I don’t propose ID. I propose Christ as the only way to eternal life through saving faith in His redemptive death at the cross and His supernatural resurrection.
As above, I think you're misunderstanding ID as if it is a parallel or competing view to Christianity. But it's a scientific theory that can be analysed without reference to theology.Silver Asiatic
January 13, 2017
January
01
Jan
13
13
2017
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
DiEb @31: it is explained @26 & @27 please, note the term "identity" My identity is not in ID, YEC, OEC, etc. ID is a scientific hypothesis or theory. I do agree with some parts of it. Maybe don't understand other parts of it. Perhaps I've posted more references to biology-related research papers than most folks in UD+TSZ combined the last few years. However that does not qualify me as a biologist or a scientist. I don't do science or propose biology. I just point to it. Therefore I'm not a biology-proponent. ID is about detection of design in certain things. Perhaps certain things are directly designed or the product of physical laws that are designed in order to produce those things. But ID - as a science- stops short of identifying the Designer. I openly believe that the absolute ultimate reality is defined in the first three verses of the first chapter of the gospel written by John the apostle. That disqualifies me as an ID-proponent. My identity is in Christ alone. That's all. From a philosophical perspective ID is a theological eintopf on steroids. A wide spectrum of philosophical and theological worldview positions fit within the definition of ID-proponent. But someone whose identity is in Christ alone has a worldview that doesn't fit within those boundaries. Faith in Christ is not a science, though it is rational. Jesus made everything that exists, visible or invisible. Literally everything, including space and time. The God I worship is not a god of the gaps, but the God of the whole show, as professor John Lennox said. The scientific discoveries give us a tiny glimpse of God's mind. That's why I like biology. Specially the parts that remind me of my professional background in control systems and information technology. It's just fascinating. I share here in this website some of the information I read, so that other folks can enjoy it too. God's wonderful creation is His general revelation to all His creatures that were made in Imago Dei. The Holy Scriptures, which are so controversial and have so many detractors, are God's special revelation to His children. Perhaps you could say that I'm an ID-friendly guy. But not an ID proponent. I don't propose ID. I propose Christ as the only way to eternal life through saving faith in His redemptive death at the cross and His supernatural resurrection.Dionisio
January 12, 2017
January
01
Jan
12
12
2017
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
DiEb: Have you ever seen this before? https://www.bpb.de/geschichte/nationalsozialismus/weisse-rose/Dionisio
January 12, 2017
January
01
Jan
12
12
2017
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
@Dionisio da nada... #26/27 sounded like an exercise in semantics. You are one of the most prolific contributors at a blog "serving the Intelligent Design community" and you claim that you don't argue in favor of Intelligent Design?DiEb
January 12, 2017
January
01
Jan
12
12
2017
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, I think I have explained my identity in this website before.Dionisio
January 12, 2017
January
01
Jan
12
12
2017
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
DiEb: Off topic: have you ever read about Sophie Scholl in your first language?Dionisio
January 12, 2017
January
01
Jan
12
12
2017
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
DiEb @25: Danke! BTW, do you understand my comments @26 & @27?Dionisio
January 12, 2017
January
01
Jan
12
12
2017
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @23: Isn't ID a scientific hypothesis? Well, I'm not a scientist, hence I can't propose any scientific hypothesis. However, I agree with some ideas of the ID proponents. But agreeing with some of their ideas does not qualify me as an actual proponent. That would be a disservice to the ID hypothesis.Dionisio
January 12, 2017
January
01
Jan
12
12
2017
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @23: As far as I understand it, a proponent is someone who argues in favor of something. However, I also see it as an identity. ID is not my identity. My identity is not in any concept known by an acronym like ID, YEC or OEC.Dionisio
January 12, 2017
January
01
Jan
12
12
2017
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Dionisio:
What is the ID hypothesis?
https://uncommondescent.com/id-defined/DiEb
January 12, 2017
January
01
Jan
12
12
2017
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @23:
Do you reject the ID hypothesis?
What is the ID hypothesis? BTW, a proponent is someone who argues in favor of something.Dionisio
January 12, 2017
January
01
Jan
12
12
2017
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Dionisio
I’m not an ID proponent.
Why not? Do you reject the ID hypothesis?Silver Asiatic
January 12, 2017
January
01
Jan
12
12
2017
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
DiEb, FYI - Here's some information I posted @324 in the thread some of your readers seem obsessed with. 324 Dionisio April 25, 2015 at 9:54 am Amazing orchestration: “Embryonic development has its own tempo—from the thumping rock beat of early cell division to something more like modern minimalism, where you have cells working together while still doing their own thing, making the music more melodious and complex. Finally, as nerves start working and sending impulses, it moves to something more syncopated and rhythmic.” Professor Hazel Sive, MIT. http://ocw.mit.edu/faculty/hazel-sive/ https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mystery-at-the-heart-of-life/#comment-561001 That was a very insightful course I watched almost two years ago, as per the suggestion of a biologist I know personally. Also see posts 325 and 327 related to lectures by the same MIT professor.Dionisio
January 12, 2017
January
01
Jan
12
12
2017
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
DiEb @14:
[...] using google searches for keywords like “morphogen” and “tRNA”.
FYI - I did not use google searches (at least not directly) for the stats about those biology terms. Both blogs have embedded search tools. I don't know what search engines those built-in tools use. Maybe Google? Normally I use Bing because my laptop, tablet and phone operate on Windows. However, using the MSFT Xamarin tools one can develop software in Windows for the Apple and Android platforms too. BTW, which tool(s) did you use to find the information you posted @19? Danke!Dionisio
January 12, 2017
January
01
Jan
12
12
2017
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
DiEb @19:
I recounted these manually: gpuccio comments were 1706, 1709, 2054, 2076, 2171, 2215… So, we both were wrong: gpuccio commented not four, not five, but six times on this thread – turning it into a sparkling dialogue, I suppose.
Good catch! Danke! My count was definitely wrong. I had missed gpuccio's comment posted @2171! Perhaps God kept me from seeing it lest I brag about what gpuccio wrote in it. BTW, gpuccio's comments in that thread (maybe except 2171?) were the most insightful. I think someone explained that perhaps one reason we don't see more folks commenting in that thread is that it's too serious (boring?). Most folks prefer lighter topics. I'm not sure if I understood that right or if that explanation was accurate, but not many folks dare to comment in it. However, the total number of visits is much greater than the number of comments. Perhaps some folks out there still find something interesting in it but prefer to remain quietly on the sideline? :) FYI - in that thread I post references to papers I read while doing research for a project I'm working on, which includes (among other things) software development for science education using interactive 4D computer games and animation. I thought other people could benefit from reading some of those papers too. In order to study biology one may take free online classes from MIT (Professor Jeff Gore), Weizmann Institute of Science (professor Uri Alon), etc. and later read peer-reviewed research papers, mainly the reviews. There are other more or less conventional approaches to study biology.Dionisio
January 12, 2017
January
01
Jan
12
12
2017
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT
As I said at the end of my post at TSZ:
Alas, I cannot give any guarantee that some edits and posts were not inadvertently omitted, and I’m grateful for any party involved willing to check my results.
So, I thank you for your input, as you take an interest in the stats of this thread (2169), it was a welcomed opportunity to verify my numbers. According to my data, there were five contributors to the thread "Mystery at the heart of life" in 2016: Dionisio 938 Pindi 2 Querius 1 butifnot 1 gpuccio 6 I recounted these manually: gpuccio comments were 1706, 1709, 2054, 2076, 2171, 2215... So, we both were wrong: gpuccio commented not four, not five, but six times on this thread - turning it into a sparkling dialogue, I suppose.DiEb
January 11, 2017
January
01
Jan
11
11
2017
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT
@Dionisio, #16 1. German 2. I came to UD via the writings of William Dembski: you will not find much biology in them, neither. 3. Thanks.DiEb
January 11, 2017
January
01
Jan
11
11
2017
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT
DiEb @14 [#16 addendum]:
Acartia should have written 99.05% of all 948 in that thread in 2016 were by Dionisio, four (0.633%) by gpuccio, two by Pindi and one by Querius and butifnot each.
Didn't you read what I wrote @6?
There were several serious comments posted by other people in that thread in 2016. Also a couple of completely irrelevant comments written by a politely-dissenting person. Details available upon request.
If you did, then why did you try to count them yourself after I offered the details upon request? Anyway, apparently your counting wasn't accurate: gpuccio posted five comments in that thread in 2016. However, my point was not about how many comments were posted by other folks, but about the incorrect use of the word "ALL" by someone posting in your thread. Don't be so defensive and admit that it was inaccurate. That's all. It's so simple. The word "ALL" was wrong in that context even if there was just one comment posted by someone else. Words have meaning. Although these days I have realized that exact meaning is not as important to some folks out there as it is to others. I like when someone points at something I have written incorrectly. Usually I learn much from correcting my own errors. Many times other people have to point at them for me. I do appreciate that. Specially if that service is free of charge. :)Dionisio
January 11, 2017
January
01
Jan
11
11
2017
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
DiEb @14:
I just want to stress the fact that this wasn’t in my post, but just a comment to it (not by me) – I suppose we can find countless inaccurate comments at UD, too. Acartia should have written 99.05% of all 948 in that thread in 2016 were by Dionisio, four (0.633%) by gpuccio, two by Pindi and one by Querius and butifnot each.
1. Would you mind revealing your first language? Just curious. Thank you. BTW, mine is Spanish. 2. You did not understand my comment well. Basically, someone mentioned TSZ in a comment addressed to me, so I looked at that website to see how many biology topics were discussed or at least mentioned in it. The results of my quick exercise were disappointing at best. Otherwise I would consider assigning part of my limited spare time to look at that site too. Maybe in the future, assuming it improves in the biology category. Maybe you could alert me about it when it happens? :) Bottom line, I did not start to prove (or demonstrate) anything, but just satisfy my own curiosity about a website someone had mentioned to me a little earlier in the same thread. 3. The inaccuracy was written in a comment within the thread you created. I only brought it up to your attention for your information because it referred to me. Your defensive statement about the UD website does not concern me, because I'm not in charge on this blog or any of its numerous discussion threads. Actually, as I have declared in this forum before, I'm not an ID proponent.Dionisio
January 11, 2017
January
01
Jan
11
11
2017
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply