When two people are arguing on Reddit, they should be able to call for a vote about who is right

[-]

dirty_cheeser@reddit

Idk if "right" exists. Truth is an illusionary tool to gain power.

[-]

SammyGeorge@reddit

Exactly! Thats why I know I'm right when I say there's no such thing as gravity and we can all fly

/s

[-]

This statement appears false because assuming it to be false has utility in our current lifestyles. We live with a relatively constant unknown force that we call gravity. Using that gives us the tools to manage transportation, among other things we like. We assume its true because we like it. Maybe gravity is an illusion or can be explained by other forces; but even if that were the case, assuming it to be true has utility so we should continue.

In the context of statistics, George Box said: "All models are wrong, but some are useful". I think this is extendable to most other truths, but statisticians are probably more aware of error than other disciplines since, in many ways, it is a study of models' errors.

[-]

SammyGeorge@reddit

Following your logic, in what way is anyone gaining power by the false assertion of the existence of gravity

[-]

dirty_cheeser@reddit

The model of gravity plugs into physics equations, which plug into engineering cad systems, which have the power to those who adopted it were empowered to build basically everything in the modern world since newton. It wouldn't matter whether gravity is some quantum force, a side effect of relativity, a side effect of an rapidly expanding earth or a gods actions because the models that are built by it give us utility.

Here is an example of false but useful: miasma theory of disease linked disease to bad air. This is wrong according to modern germ and virus theories. However this miasma theory led to sanitation improvements to clear the bad air which helped control disease so it really didn't matter that it is considered false today because it was useful. Germ theory is better scientific backing but that's irrelevant, the real reason we use it is because it has better outcomes. The outcomes matter, not the truth.

[-]

SammyGeorge@reddit

Germ theory is better scientific backing but that's irrelevant, the real reason we use it is because it has better outcomes.

This only addresses what we believe and how we can utilise it, not what is true. Whether we are aware of it or not, something is true. That's why I use gravity as an example. Whether our understanding of it is completely accurate or not, the truth remains that leaving for work via my second story window is not going to end well for me

[-]

dirty_cheeser@reddit

Not stepping out of the window can be justified on utility grounds even if our understanding of gravity is completely wrong. I can make truth claims that if I step out of the window, I will fall. This can be supported and the confidence in the fact increased with testing.

If truth is increased confidence in beliefs, then truth exists. But then, truth is no more authoritative than opinion. What does the truth do if it's separate from belief and utility?

[-]

SammyGeorge@reddit

I can make truth claims that if I step out of the window, I will fall.

But the truth is just a tool to gain power, so how could you say that??

But then, truth is no more authoritative than opinion.

I genuinely don't know how to respond to that. You're just arguing semantics. You can't change the definition of "truth" so you can argue that it doesn't exist... Well I guess you can, but it's a stupid thing to do

[-]

dirty_cheeser@reddit

It is a claim or belief, with high enough confidence that we treat it as a truth.

Agreed that our disagreement is probably about definitions. Though I don't believe truth has a non-circular definition so I'm not changing anything. It is usually defined with synonyms, a lack of antonyms, or as a correspondence with reality which since we use truth to discuss what is reality does not help much. I believe "truth" is a semantic trick to elevate beliefs and preferences from personal to authoritative statements.

[-]

SammyGeorge@reddit

Following your logic, in what way is anyone gaining power by the false assertion of gravity

[-]

KMCobra64@reddit

What??? Truth exists, full stop. There is only one truth. Sometimes it's easy to discern and other times we struggle to understand but that doesn't stop there from being one objective reality.

[-]

dirty_cheeser@reddit

Agreed, but that truth is incomprehensibly large and are brains are too limited to comprehend it. There's either infinite or a huge number of propositions you can make. The ones you focus on say more than the actual claims.

To give an example, suppose I'm giving someone an interview for a job. I could ask character questions, I could ask puzzles, or I could ask technical questions... Which is the best? idk. To figure that out we need to take the next step and measure objective truth about outcomes. But are we measuring best by best for the interviewer, the applicant, the firm, the consumer, the society or some other parties? Then for whatever combination of parties we choose to focus on, how do we determine good? Wealth, happiness, longevity, risk minimization...? You can make objective truth claims for a simple question like what is the best question to asking a job interview only after agreeing on numerous simplifications based on assumptions and personal preferences.

So technically, I agree with you. But in practice, I don't.

[-]

starmartyr@reddit

The truth should not be democratized. Majorities can be wrong easily enough.

[-]

AbrahamLemon@reddit

Absolutely, that's called Reddit.

[-]

catjuggler@reddit

Have you ever watched Reddit discuss a topic you’re an expert in and then wonder if everything you read here is equally wrong? Like, yikes

[-]

starmartyr@reddit

I've been downvoted and ridiculed for my take on a topic that I've been published on. My nuanced expert opinion can't compete with a profanity filled simple one. I just stay away now.

[-]

AbrahamLemon@reddit

I have, and it changed the way I interact with Reddit.

r/AskPhysics had a question in a topic that I have done work in. It's not my expertise, but I knew about it. The top rated answer was entirely wrong. The second answer, correcting the first was also wrong, and wrong in its correction. The third answer was wrong in a third, new way.

I don't trust anyone about anything anymore.

[-]

MRicho@reddit

As shown in the US recently, the majority is not always right.

[-]

PM_Your_Wiener_Dog@reddit

Nunt uh, No they should-n't!

[-]

Turbulent-Name-8349@reddit

There is a saying, a very famous saying. "Never argue with an idiot. People won't know the difference."

[-]

DaveMTijuanaIV@reddit

The problem is that Reddit is quite abnormal and atypical in its moral outlook, ethical perspective, and honestly its extreme lack of practical intelligence and exceedingly low level of just generally knowing what in the hell the users are talking about.

Just in my own case (and I only provide all this for context…sorry if I come off like a douche) I am a professional history and philosophy teacher who also teaches Catholic theology. I have four college degrees, have been named teacher of the year, and got a perfect score on the social studies licensure exam and scores in the 99th percentile on the Miller Analogies Test. I don’t know everything and I’m not a super genius, but I’m also not an idiot and I do know a little about a few things. That said, the number of times I have been unequivocally right about things in my exact fields of expertise, only to be downvoted into oblivion by people who are confidently wrong (and not even cleverly so) is impressive.

So…your system wouldn’t really resolve who was right in arguments, but whose view was more popular on Reddit, which very likely could mean the opposite.

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

GrandmaSlappy@reddit

Isn't that just what upvotes and downvotes are for?

[-]

Imajzineer@reddit

Yes and no.

The voting system on Reddit isn't (or rather wasn't originally) a like/agree vs dislike/disagree indicator but a 'contributes/doesn't contribute to the discussion' indicator - the idea being that 'the wisdom of the crowd' would mean the best posts and replies would 'bubble up to the top'. So, it's entirely possible, therefore, for me to vehemently disagree with someone's perspective whilst upvoting something because it nevertheless raises a significant point (thereby contributing positively to the value of the discussion).

In principle, however, you are right, yes, in that the idea ... were the voting system based around 'dis/agree' ... would already be exactly what the OP is suggesting and their idea redundant.

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]