Will the war on objectivity in news media spread to science? Has it already?

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 11, 2023

Intelligent Design, Media, Philosophy, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

“Objectivity Has Got To Go”: News Leaders Call for the End of Objective Journalism”

We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools. Writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. This movement includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy.

Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll decried how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation. In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.” – February 1, 2023

If social juicest — as understood by the professor — is in conflict with objectivity, perhaps it is also in conflict with reality.

But now, will objectivity come to be seen as a constraint in science too? If so, trust will deteriorate too.

Public trust in media is way down: See Polls: Trust in mainstream U.S. media still in free fall:

A Canadian commentator has noticed a little-publicized fact about last week’s New York Times–Siena College poll of 792 registered voters. While the poll focused on the US mid-term elections next month, the information about how typical voters view mainstream media was most revealing. A majority not only don’t trust media but see them as a threat to democracy: … Media have come a long way since 1969 when an archived poll showed that Americans had strong trust in the press. – October 20, 2022

Perhaps the critical question isn’t whether traditional media are trusted but whether their model can even survive the tsunami of the internet.

You may also wish to read: In Big Tech World: the journalist as censor, hit man, and snitch. Glenn Greenwald looks at a disturbing trend in media toward misrepresentation as well as censorship.

Comments

F/N: Returning to focus: https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/
The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability. The perceiving subject can either perceive accurately or seem to perceive features of the object that are not in the object. For example, a perceiving subject suffering from jaundice could seem to perceive an object as yellow when the object is not actually yellow. Hence, the term “subjective” typically indicates the possibility of error. [--> better, want of reliable warrant]
KFkairosfocus_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Documentation https://uncommondescent.com/darwinist-debaterhetorical-tactics/that-us-state-dept-report-on-the-fraudulent-runoff-2004-election-in-ukraine-knowing-how-to-steal-an-election/ how to steal an election. KFkairosfocus_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

FP, the Ukraine case establishes some of the means known to be available. In that context, mass absentee voting cannot be justified, given its known insecurity. Indeed, in these pages, I have put up excerpts from a US State Department report, in effect testimony before Congress on the matter, I need not go into the was it 1996 election in Pennsylvania that was reversed by court order due to cheating. So, it is a pointed question to ask why mass absentee voting was pushed for and pushed through; that by itself is a smoking gun, given that a review commission in the US also warned about it. As to ID documents, it is obvious that on matters where there is a concern, such is properly enforced, but for a fact I know this is not enforced in many key US jurisdictions, and above you tried to suggest it is suspect to insist on proper ID, belittling the question of opening the door to fraud. There is an abundance of good evidence directly on the US case, but of course it is sidelined. Vivid is a direct witness to what was done just a few months ago in Arizona; start with, who would be expected to vote in person on Election day proper (not election week) then go into why ballots were reportedly mis sized for starters. And, yes, indelible, UV sensitive ink would be helpful in the US. But, it is a waste of energy to try to rehash an issue with those who rejects objectivity; save, maybe to set record. KF PS, in Caribbean jurisdictions, dye is just one of many safeguards, starting with scrutineers being present at registration, going through the whole election system, and more, as was already outlined. Having observers visibly dozens of feet away is already seriously sub standard. There is a lot more, but I will just do this, you all need an independent election commission starting at local and state level with due oversight by legislatures.kairosfocus_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Sorry, I didn’t proof-read my comment before submitting it. The safeguard used in the third-world country was to place dye on the finger of each voter to prevent a person casting multiple votes.Ford Prefect_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus writes:
FP, projection
Are you capable of having a disagreement without resorting to personal attacks? We were talking about US elections and you are claiming there was widespread voter fraud because of what happened in another country. The fact is tge the confirmed cases of voter fraud were very small in number and not a widespread or organized event. Why would we impose impediments to voting when there is not a problem to solve? I remember a few years ago, done third world country was having their first democratic election monitored by the UN. The only real safeguards imposed were to place due on the individual after he/she voted to prevent multiple votes by the same person.Ford Prefect_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Vividbleau/31
Hell has frozen over, for once I agree with you does that make me far right?
No, it makes you very sensible.
FYI I am not a Republican. I view the two parties as somewhat similar to two mafia families fighting for turf. Politicians are in the power business the bigger the government, the more regulations the more power.
Agreed.
I am for the rule of law and it’s equal application
Agreed.
I believe it is self evident that all men are created equal
I don't believe we are all created equal but we should all be entitled to the same basic human rights and equal treatment before the law.
I am for legal immigration
Agreed.
I believe that laws should be constitutional
Agreed
I am against foreign wars
It depends on the war. I would say participation in WWII was justifiable, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, not so much.
I am against oligarchy’s
Agreed.
I believe in the right to life
With certain very narrow exceptions, agreed.
I think the states should decide things such as abortion and gay marriage.
I would prefer there to be national standards on such issues for the sake of consistency
I believe that no one based on race or sexual orientation should be denied equal rights
Or religious beliefs or lack thereof. Agreed.
I believe in limited Government
Agreed.
I believe in capitalism not the faux capitalism we see today. The marriage of government and big corp has a name, it’s called facism.
I think a system which allows individuals or corporations to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth is wrong, especially because it also gives them a disproportionate amount of political influence.
I am pro union.when the workers are the actual beneficiaries I believe in sensible regulation to keep employers from taking advantage of workers.
Agreed.Seversky_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

F/N2: Pointing back to the OP, we can note on the pernicious effects of dismissing objectivity as a key journalism standard, blurring lines between reporting and agit prop: https://jonathanturley.org/2023/02/01/objectivity-has-got-to-go-news-leaders-call-for-end-of-objective-journalism/
Advocacy journalism is the new touchstone in the media even as polls show that trust in the media is plummeting. Now, former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward have released the results of their interviews with over 75 media leaders and concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.” Notably, while Bob Woodward and others have finally admitted that the Russian collusion coverage lacked objectivity and resulted in false reporting, media figures are pushing even harder against objectivity as a core value in journalism. We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools. Writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. This movement includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy. Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll decried how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation. In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.” [ . . . . ] Polls show trust in the media at an all-time low with less than 20 percent of citizens trusting television or print media. Yet, reporters and academics continue to destroy the core principles that sustain journalism and ultimately the role of a free press in our society. Notably, writers who have been repeatedly charged with false or misleading columns are some of the greatest advocates for dropping objectivity in journalism. Now the leaders of media companies are joining this self-destructive movement. They are not speaking of columnists or cable hosts who routinely share opinions. They are speaking of actual journalists, the people who are relied upon to report the news. Saying that “Objectivity has got to go” is, of course, liberating. You can dispense with the necessities of neutrality and balance. You can cater to your “base” like columnists and opinion writers. Sharing the opposing view is now dismissed as “bothsidesism.” Done. No need to give credence to opposing views. It is a familiar reality for those of us in higher education, which has been increasingly intolerant of opposing or dissenting views.
Of course, "social justice" is a euphemism for cultural marxist agendas of the Frankfurt School, now usually styled, Critical Theory or X Studies, where X takes a wide range of values. The effect of this is to lead to breakdown of media credibility, which is in the end fatal for constitutional, lawful state democratic self government. Beyond a certain point it is obvious, this is not a bug, it is a feature. There is clear intent to push ideology beyond the bounds of lawfulness and responsible truthfulness. To do this, other key institutions need to be twisted also, starting with education [especially in key academic and professional disciplines]. It is therefore utterly unsurprising to see the rot advancing steadily into medicine, technology and science. As for law, politics and government, the rot is obvious, the question is whether it is already a mortal wound. If unchecked, none of this will end well. But then, Machiavelli's warning obtains, political disorders are like hectic fever. At first, easy to cure but hard to diagnose. Then, at length, when the course of the disease is manifest to one and all, it is far too late to cure. And that is from a man whose reputation is worse than that of the Devil. KFkairosfocus_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT}

F/N: I think it is worth the pause to put on the table a general argument on objective knowledge, thus warranted, credible truth:
The truth claim, “there are no [generally knowable] objective truths regarding any matter (so, on any particular matter),” roughly equivalent to, “knowledge is inescapably only subjective or relative,” is an error. Which, happily, can be recognised and corrected. Often, such error is presented and made to seem plausible through the diversity of opinions assertion, with implication that none have or are in a position to have a generally warranted, objective conclusion. This, in extreme form, is a key thesis of the nihilism that haunts our civilisation, which we must detect, expose to the light of day, correct and dispel, in defence of civilisation and human dignity. (NB: Sometimes the blind men and the elephant fable is used to make it seem plausible, overlooking the narrator's implicit claim to objectivity. Oops!) Now, to set things aright, let’s symbolise: ~[O*G] with * as AND. This claims, it is false that there is an objective knowable truth, on the set of general definable topics, G. Ironically, it intends to describe not mere opinion but warranted, credible truth about knowledge in general. So, ~[O*G] is self referential as it is clearly about subject matter G, and is intended to be a well warranted objectively true claim. But it is itself therefore a truth claim about knowledge in general intended to be taken as objectively true, which is what it tries to deny as a possibility. So, it is self contradictory and necessarily false. In steps:
PHASE I: Let a proposition be represented by x G = x is a proposition asserting that some state of affairs regarding some identifiable matter in general including e.g. history, science, the secrets of our hearts, morality etc, is the case O = x is objective and knowable, being adequately warranted as credibly true} PHASE II: It is claimed, S= ~[O*G] = 1, 1 meaning true However, the subject of S is G, it therefore claims to be objectively true, O and is about G where it forbids O-status to any claim of type G so, ~[O*G] cannot be true per self referential incoherence ============= PHASE III: The Algebra, translating from S: ~[O*G] = 0 [as self referential and incoherent cf above] ~[~[O*G]] = 1 [the negation is therefore true] __________ O*G = 1 [condensing not of not] where, G [general truth claim including moral ones of course] So too, O [if an AND is true, each sub proposition is separately true] ================ CONCLUSION: That is, there are objective general, particular and -- as a key case -- moral truths; and a first, self evident one is that ~[O*G] is false, ~[O*G] = 0. Therefore, the set of knowable objective truths in general -- and embracing those that happen to be about states of affairs in regard to right conduct etc -- is non empty, it is not vacuous and we cannot play empty set square of opposition games with it.
That’s important. Also, there are many particular objective general and moral truths that are adequately warranted to be regarded as reliable. Try, Napoleon was once a European monarch and would be conqueror. Try, Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of history. Try, it is wrong to torture babies for fun, and more. Ours is a needlessly confused age, heading for trouble.
Similarly, Willard and heirs:
To have knowledge in the dispositional sense—where you know things you are not necessarily thinking about at the time—is to be able to represent something as it is on an adequate basis of thought or experience, not to exclude communications from qualified sources (“authority”). This is the “knowledge” of ordinary life, and it is what you expect of your electrician, auto mechanic, math teacher, and physician. Knowledge is not rare, and it is not esoteric . . . no satisfactory general description of “an adequate basis of thought or experience” has ever been achieved. We are nevertheless able to determine in many specific types of cases that such a basis is or is not present [p.19] . . . . Knowledge, but not mere belief or feeling, generally confers the right to act and to direct action, or even to form and supervise policy. [p. 20] In any area of human activity, knowledge brings certain advantages. Special considerations aside, knowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach. It does so because, as everyone assumes, it enables us to deal more successfully with reality: with what we can count on, have to deal with, or are apt to have bruising encounters with. Knowledge involves ~~assured~~ [--> warranted, credible] truth, and truth in our representations and beliefs is very like accuracy in the sighting mechanism on a gun. If the mechanism is accurately aligned—is “true,” it enables those who use it with care to hit an intended target. [p. 4, Dallas Willard & Literary Heirs, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge, Routledge|Taylor& Francis Group, 2018. ]
Then, Collins:
Kindly, ponder the very carefully worded definitions from Collins English Dictionary [CED], where high quality dictionaries record and report correct usage:
SUBJECTIVE: subjective adj 1. belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered [--> in short, in the contemplating subject, not necessarily the contemplated observed or abstract object such as the null set {} --> 0] 2. of, relating to, or emanating from a person’s emotions, prejudices, etc: subjective views. [--> this highlights the error-pronenes of our subjectivity, thus need for filtering to achieve adequate reliability] OBJECTIVE: objective adj 1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions: are there objective moral values?. [AmHD helps: 1. a. Existing independent of or external to the mind;] {--> independent of particularly should be seen as inherent in the object, observable or abstract and that on grounds that confer reliability} 2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias [--> highlighting error proneness] 3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc.[ --> this sense especially relates to observable, concrete things like a tree, and again points to our error proneness, however for cause something like the null set and related Math is objective though abstract, there being no physical location for the null set]
Dictionaries of course summarise from usage by known good speakers and writers, forming a body of recorded knowledge on language. So, we may freely conclude that:
objectivity does not mean empirical, tangible external/physical object or the like, it can include items contemplated by the mind such as mathematical entities etc and which due to adequate warrant are reasonably INDEPENDENT of our individual or collective error-prone cognition, opinions, delusions, biases and distortions etc.
Objectivity, is established as a key concept that addresses our error proneness by provision of adequate warrant that gives good reason to be confident that the item or state of affairs etc contemplated is real not a likely point of delusion. Yes, degree of warrant is a due consideration and in many cases common to science etc is defeasible but credible. In certain key cases, e.g. actual self evidence, it is utterly certain.
That is how far we have fallen. KFkairosfocus_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT}

FP, projection, the false dilemma was exposed. Facts from a highly relevant case were identified. Your appeal to implied injustice in fact is therefore manipulative and uses a counsel of imagined perfection to achieve a well known target of rhetorical devices and debate, to make the worse seem the better case and the better the worse. As for the media and agit prop fed dismissiveness, I will note that your strawman targets miss the key matters by a long distance and show widespread, agenda serving institutional failure. Absentee ballots are inherently far less secure than in person voting, one needs an ID verification even to interact with an ATM or legally drive a vehicle, sound chain of custody is a well known anti fraud approach, voter rolls need to be clean, blackbox machines are no sounder than their sources, coding and networks, paper creates unique traceable artifacts [even a fold crease pattern, much less traces of bamboo fibres can help provide signatures before we get to micro particle inks etc . . . ponder the blue and red fibres that used to be in valid US Currency paper], phantom voters sourcing false ballots mixed into vote counting with lack of proper scrutineering can and credibly did lead to fraud-signature patterns in recent elections in the US, and in fact much was established and published that was willfully sidelined -- something that is predictably going to end in fatal disaffection if unchecked. And, beyond, lies abuse of censorship power through clear public-private partnerships as say $45 bn was spent to publicly expose in a key case. But, all of this is to show the dangers involved in the now widespread anticivilisational undermining of the first principles and duties of reason, which, too, are first, built in law. It is no accident that, above, the point that while we all face biases, objectivity traces to warrant has not been focal to a thread that is precisely about the attack on objectivity. KFkairosfocus_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus writes:
FP, false dilemma
Your evasion is duly noted. It has always been a balancing act. You can never completely eliminate the possibility of voter fraud. Any more than you can remove all possible impediments to casting a ballot. What I find amusing is that after the 2020 election, almost all conspiracy theories about voter fraud had Trump being the victim. Yet the handful of confirmed incidents of voter fraud had Trump benefitting. None of the Benford law and scatter plot misrepresentation, none of the voting machine, stuffed ballot box, late night deliveries and double counting conspiracy theories, resulted in a single confirmed incident of fraud. Multiple recounts and farcical examination of the rice content of mail in ballots failed to identify any indication of voter fraud. At some point, serious claims have to be supported by convincing evidence. If they aren’t, and the same baseless claims keep being made, the people making the claims lose all credibility.Ford Prefect_{February 14, 2023
February
02
Feb
14
14
2023
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

FP, false dilemma -- a particularly pernicious fallacy.The second horn is impossible, and the first dubious, while the history of machine politics shows the vulnerability of elections to material fraud. Prevented, is highly loaded language. You have given a case in point of turning from objectivity. What can be done is to have free, fair, reasonably clean elections with low fraud and honest reporting. KF PS, Wikipedia confesses on the 2004 Ukraine election,
Following the November 21 run-off ballot, Ukraine's electoral commission declared Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych with 49.42% of the vote the winner with Viktor Yushchenko receiving 46.69% of the ballots cast.[5] Observers for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) said the run-off vote "did not meet international standards" and U.S. senior election observer, Senator Richard Lugar, called it a "concerted and forceful program of election day fraud". The geographic distribution of the votes showed a clear east–west division of Ukraine, which is rooted deeply in the country's history. The western and central parts roughly correspond with the former territories of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 17th century. They are considered more pro-Western, with the population mostly Ukrainian-speaking and Ukrainian Greek Catholic (Uniate) in the west or Ukrainian Orthodox in the center, and have voted predominantly for Yushchenko. The heavy-industrialized eastern part, including the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, where the links with Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church are much stronger, and which contains many ethnic Russians, is a Yanukovych stronghold. Between the two rounds of the election, dramatic increases in turnout were recorded in Yanukovych-supporting regions, while Yushchenko-supporting regions recorded the same turnout or lower than recorded in the first round. This effect was most marked in eastern Ukraine and especially in Yanukovych's stronghold of Donetsk Oblast, where a turnout of 98.5% was reportedly claimed—more than 40% up from the first round.[1][2] In some districts, turnout was recorded to be more than 100%, with one district reported by observers to have recorded a 127% turnout.[1][2] According to election observers and post-election investigations, pro-Yanukovych activists traveled around the country and voted many times as absentees.[1][2] Some groups dependent on government assistance, such as students, hospital patients and prisoners, were told to vote for the government candidate.[6] Many other alleged irregularities were reported, including ballot stuffing, intimidation at voting booths and huge numbers of new voters appearing on the electoral rolls—in Donetsk alone, half a million more voters were registered for the runoff election. Yanukovych won all but one of the regions where significant increases in turnout were noted. It was later determined by the Ukrainian Supreme Court that this was in fact due to widespread falsification of the results.
Those who dismiss, ignore or neglect the lessons of history doom themselves to relive its worst chapters. That's enough to point out some of the issues.kairosfocus_{February 14, 2023
February
02
Feb
14
14
2023
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus writes:
FP, I can afford to wait. You need to see the case of Uk4raine 2004 as a yardstick. KF
What’s more important? 1) Ensuring that no eligible voter is prevented from voting. 2) Ensuring that small scale voter fraud is impossible. The reason I ask is that you can’t have both.Ford Prefect_{February 14, 2023
February
02
Feb
14
14
2023
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

FP, I can afford to wait. You need to see the case of Uk4raine 2004 as a yardstick. KFkairosfocus_{February 14, 2023
February
02
Feb
14
14
2023
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus writes:
Sound voter ID and sound chain of custody on ballots (including sound scrutiny of ballot counting) are two foundational steps to sound elections and yet on flimsy grounds these have been widely undermined in the US.
And in spite of all the conspiracy theories, they have still not confirmed any widespread voter fraud. Where I live there are three ways to cast a ballot at the polling stations. 1) government issued photo ID. 2) two pieces of ID with your name on it, and one must have your address. 3) be vouched for, in writing, by someone in the same voting district that has one of the two forms of ID above. A person can only vouch for one other person. And for as long as I have been voting, I have never heard of any significant levels of voter fraud that resulted from this. So your chicken little impersonation, although amusing, had zero warrant.Ford Prefect_{February 14, 2023
February
02
Feb
14
14
2023
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

CD, my comment is, your projection is admittedly cynical. I do not wish to get into a side debate on elections but simply note that there is in fact sobering evidence of manipulation and significant fraud, as part of a wider conflict that if it is not soundly resolved will end very badly indeed. I suggest you start with the election in 2004 in Ukraine that had to be abandoned, due to a fraud prone absentee ballot system, and follow up from there. The talk points on election security 101, sound ID of voters and sound chain of custody on ballots, are a tell, as I will next point out to FP, KF FP, the talking point on undermining insistence on adequate voter ID is a telling example of how entrenched enabling of fraud has become. Sound voter ID and sound chain of custody on ballots (including sound scrutiny of ballot counting) are two foundational steps to sound elections and yet on flimsy grounds these have been widely undermined in the US. I assure you, here in the Caribbean, no one, is supposed to vote without id, and votes are secured and counted under scrutiny. As at now, any astute person will insist on in person, election day voting on preferably two photo ids, with paper ballots, manually counted under scrutiny, and in my region, UV indelible ink as a mark of having voted. The notion that responsible security on a critical mechanism of government is somehow racist is thus exposed as a cynical piece of defamatory, atmosphere poisoning agit prop. Where, there are no fractional ballots so software should bake in integer operations on same and should be open source, all bugs are shallow under enough pairs of eyes. Similarly, the Reichstag fire incident should be soundly taught in schools, as a capital example of subversion of a liberal democracy within living memory. There are no coincidences. KF PS, the Benford pattern, demonstrably, can and does occur within one decade of scale. That needs to be acknowledged on observed fact. Once a result is due to product of multiple multiplicative factors, a lognormal distribution will emerge quite naturally. And normal curves are strong enough to emerge within thirty data points, as a reasonable expectation, the log simply moves from product to sum, leading to clustering around a peak with a bell shaped scatter. This is the root of the layman's law of averages. Your dismissiveness shows ill founded hyperskepticism. Generally, notice, that no one has been able to address the point that objectivity is not about bias disqualifies [such will disqualify us all, self referentially] but instead is about adequacy of warrant. KF PS: Cf my comment at 10:
opinion has nothing to do with objectivity, which is a matter of warrant adequate to credibly hold that a given claim, perception, argument etc is not merely a matter of someone’s error prone subjectivity (of which bias is a part). Loaded language, hostile tone, obvious fallacies of projection and personalisation, half truths and the like are fairly strong indications of a less than objective view.
kairosfocus_{February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT}

Ford Prefect,
Requiring photo-ID makes it more difficult for people on the fringe of society to vote.
Also, photo IDs unfairly prevent citizens of other countries to vote in U.S. elections. Shouldn't world opinion be expressed in U.S. elections, considering that North America was stolen from their original inhabitants, right? The identical issue is that requiring photo-ID makes it more difficult for people on the fringe of society to drive cars or buy an airline ticket or travel to a different country. If people don't care about an election, they're free to not cast their vote, so why shouldn't people who feel very strongly about a candidate be able to vote multiple times? And shouldn't children also be able to vote? After all, elections affect them too, right? -QQuerius_{February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT}

There is nobody doubting that voter fraud happens. But there is no evidence that it is anything but small scale and inconsequential. After the 2020 election I saw people argue for fraud using things like Benford law and scatter plots to support their arguments. Only to double down or get angry when the flaws in their statistical arguments were conclusively demonstrated. But voter suppression is a different thing. Requiring photo-ID makes it more difficult for people on the fringe of society to vote. Restricting voting hours or mail-in votes penalizes those who have to work two or more jobs. Although, it could be argued, that this is getting closer to what the founding fathers intended. Only white land owning males should be able to vote.Ford Prefect_{February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

KF Interesting that you attribute Nixon not pursing voter fraud litigation as too destabilizing. I've heard that, but the cynic in me attributes it to the fact that Nixon knew he would run again and didn't want the taint that you see Trump piling up daily with his post-election shenanigans. Nixon was many things, but stupid wasn't one of those things. He was a brilliant but extremely flawed person. I believe towards the end, he and Kissinger pathologically fed each other's insecurities and grandiosities, fueled to a large degree by alcohol. Henry the K, managed to leave the building just in time, but he was to Nixon what Cheney was to W--opportunists that didn't give a whit about the office, but only what they could milk it for, both fully aware that they were leaving their bosses to dangle in the wind....chuckdarwin_{February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

PS, I recall, years ago that RMN did not take up the matter legally as he was concerned about stability.kairosfocus_{February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

CD, I cited a case to show living memory reality. It patently continues despite denials, and that needs to be faced. KFkairosfocus_{February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

CD continued Last comment. You talk about voter suppression. I have first hand experience and voter suppression goes both ways. The heart of our system requires that each individual vote counts sadly I have lost all faith in the system as it currently operates. You rightfully point out that politics gets down and dirty it is indeed war without ( hopefully) blood. However if we dont restore faith that our vote counts violence is on the way. My story. I live in Maricopa County and like many traditional older voters I vote on Election Day. My wife and I go to our voting place, we are told you can’t vote because of a machine malfunction you have to wait. After waiting for an hour in line with hundreds of others we are told we have to go to another voting site. So we get in the car go to the next site and the line is two hours long. Many people gave up but we are stubborn people and waited for two hours to cast our ballot It took us a total of approximately 5 hours to vote.. Many people just gave up. This crap happened to thousands of Maricopa County voters on Election Day. Going to my rule number 1) I believe what I see. Our voting system is broken. I am still furious. I think back to the Georgia election reform and how it was vilified by the media to such an extent that MLB withdrew the planned venue from predominately black Atlanta to lily white Denver all under the banner of some kind of racial equity BS. So MLB punished the blacks in the name of some kind of racial suppression and gave it to whites. Rule number one I believe what I see. Done Vividvividbleau_{February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

CD continued One of the most impactful books I have read was written about 175 years ago titled “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” Really a fascinating book that explores crowd psychology and how as a group we can believe the most incredibly stupid things. Think Tulip Bulbs, South Sea Bubble, Crusades, etc etc. Whole populations embracing crazy stuff fueled by common beliefs and tales that get amplified to an extraordinary level. Sort of like “All the experts can’t be wrong” In todays age with all the instantaneous dissemination of news, the echo chamber we inhabit, we are extremely vulnerable to believe in all kinds of delusions. So the first step in weaving through the bull shit is to recognize our individual vulnerability to not only embrace BS but actively throw it around ourselves. This gets me back to information and verification. I personally subscribe to a couple of rules . !) Believe what I see. Let’s take immigration as an example, some one says our borders are not open, really? What they are saying to me is “Don’t believe your lying eyes” Now I dont want this to degenerate into a policy disagreement on immigration, one can disagree on policy but dont piss on my leg and tell me its raining. 2) Do not believe anyone that has repeatedly lied to me. Example your Washington Post link. Sorry the WP, the NYT, CNN, MSNBC, ABC,CBS ,etc etc have lied to me to many times they are not a credible source of information. However I have found credible liberal people that do not agree with my worldview or my politics that would be described as to the left as credible. I am thinking of people like Matt Taibbi or Glenn Greenwald. 3) Do not poison the well based on the source of the information the only question to ask is the story accurate. You dont like Breitbart or The Federalist fair enough but when asked were the stories I linked to inaccurate you have so far demurred. 4) Always , always remind myself I have observational bias. Vividvividbleau_{February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

KF With due respect, the Kennedy-Nixon election was 60+ years ago. Even under the most rigorous standards applicable to election analysis, there was never any evidence of game-changing voter fraud in Texas and Illinois, the two states where it was alleged to have occurred. And once Watergate hit the fan, any lingering sympathy for Tricky Dick went right down the proverbial toilet.........chuckdarwin_{February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

CD re 38/41 I agree that ones perspective plays a big role as it relates to bias and I am acutely aware that I come at many things with a whole pack back full of biases which I think is a necessary admission for everyone. To be aware that I do indeed suffer from observational bias is the first step in some sort of check and balance to how I view different perspectives that go against my bias. Let me give you an example. The only social site I have is Twitter, I don't do Facebook, Instagram, etc. Let’s say that I come to a tweet that says “ The alien invasion has been called off after viewing the Super Bowl halftime show” Well after viewing the show I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment but experience has shown me that whether this is actually the case i need to check the comments section. The best fact checker regarding any headline coming from Twitter will be the commentators that will point out to me the inaccuracy’s in the story. So I make it a habit to check the comments section before I send out anything I read on Twitter especially the ones that support my bias. Regarding your extreme frustration with all the BS from both sides I give a hearty “Amen” and hope that I have not committed either a micro or macro aggression using that term to an atheist LOL I have more to say but to often in the past when I write a long post sometimes it disappears so I will send my comments in chunks. Vividvividbleau_{February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

CD, voter/electoral fraud was also a longstanding problem [ponder 1960] and is again a serious issue; the issue is suppression of evidence compounded by polarisation and abuse of censorship power of major media houses -- see what is emerging on Twitter. KFkairosfocus_{February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

CD at 41, I vote. I know about voter fraud. Afterwards, things get passed and people get elected. For the record, I did not vote for Mr. Trump.relatd_{February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

CD re 38./ 41 Thank you for your very thoughtful replies, hope to post some comments after stock market closes. FYI evidently you must be a subscriber to access your link so I was unable to read the article. Vividvividbleau_{February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

Relatd You need to wake up. Voter suppression has a long history in the US. For years a number of southern states were under a Congressionally mandated, Justice Dept. policy that required all redistricting and other voting requirements, such as IDs, literacy tests, etc. to be pre-approved by DOJ before they could be implemented. The Trump administration rolled back those protections under the pretext of massive voter fraud. The first two things to go were availability of absentee ballots and extended voting hours. Trump's own AG, William Barr, noted that DOJ had decisively demonstrated that Trump's claims were unsupported by any evidence. The myriad lawsuits filed by Trump and his toadies, have all been dismissed. We would all like to believe in "one man, one vote. Unfortunately, politics is a very dirty game. As Harvard philosopher George Santayana noted: Those that do not heed history are doomed to repeat it...... (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-2020-strategy-is-to-prevent-as-many-people-as-possible-from-voting/2020/06/14/110271d6-ace3-11ea-94d2-d7bc43b26bf9_story.html)chuckdarwin_{February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

CD at 38, One man, one vote. It is incorrect to say the US, as a group of people, is moving in this or that direction. Everyone can say what they want. I ignore the obvious nonsense being peddled online.relatd_{February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

My apologies to Breitbart and the Federalist, both bastions of American journalistic integrity
if you have any objections to either be specific. Otherwise it’s just nonsense. I don’t read either regularly but often see links to articles in each. Some of which I follow. As far as I can see the articles in the Federalist are usually well argued. Though like any compendium there will always be extremes. My guess is that you will disappear and pop up in some other place to make derogatory comments.jerry_{February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply