←back to thread

707 points patd | 6 comments | | HN request time: 1.459s | source | bottom
1. unexaminedlife ◴[] No.23328407[source]
Somehow technology needs to help bridge the divide here. Literally the ONLY argument that needs to be had is "what are facts and logic". Unfortunately not enough people know what these are, which is severely hampering our country's ability to function as a democracy.
replies(1): >>23328915 #
2. cryptonector ◴[] No.23328915[source]
Complete objectivity is impossible. This is why Ayn Rand's Objectivism philosophy was so broken. It's not just that humans can't be completely objective -- any AI can't be either, and you can't write have a human write an algorithm that yields 100% objectivity. It can't be done. There is no short-cut. The arguments have to be had. Consensus/democracy/institutions is all we've got, and we have to and will make that work.
replies(1): >>23328971 #
3. unexaminedlife ◴[] No.23328971[source]
Not sure we're disagreeing here. But, an important point would be that we should be striving for objectivity. In Trump's world objectivity is not a goal. To him it's an obstacle.
replies(1): >>23329433 #
4. cryptonector ◴[] No.23329433{3}[source]
Certainly we should be striving for objectivity. But our political divisions run deep, and many people have a hard time seeing the other side's point of view. Your assertion that "[i]n Trump's world objectivity is not a goal" is indicative that you aren't open to the possibility that he's being more objective than you think, therefore, if your view is less objective than you think, then clearly you're part of the problem. Of course, maybe you're right, but you don't seem open to the possibility that you're wrong. And that simply illustrates my point about the difficulty of arriving at objective truth in matters where we're so deeply divided.
replies(1): >>23329562 #
5. unexaminedlife ◴[] No.23329562{4}[source]
I may seem "closed" to the possibility that Trump is being more objective than me. Then again we all have over 3 years of observations on which to base our conclusions.

I will be interested, and open-minded, when reading your treatise explaining how one could conclude that Trump has been an objective reasonable President.

replies(1): >>23329703 #
6. cryptonector ◴[] No.23329703{5}[source]
Ah, but I wouldn't argue that he's an objectively reasonable President. I would argue that there are people who believe that he is, and that we all have to be open to the possibility that either (or even both) sides are similarly objective as to their view of that question.