←back to thread

CDC data are disappearing

(www.theatlantic.com)
749 points doener | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
breadwinner ◴[] No.42902252[source]
Data is the ultimate Fact Check. This is a President that's adamantly opposed to fact checking [1] and has even coerced Facebook to drop fact checking. Of course they don't want data on government sites that disprove their "alternate facts".

[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4920827-60-minutes-tru...

replies(10): >>42902356 #>>42902413 #>>42902434 #>>42902630 #>>42902793 #>>42902978 #>>42903439 #>>42903684 #>>42904050 #>>42918244 #
uncomplexity_ ◴[] No.42902434[source]
lol if you watch zuck's take on it his problem is the fact checkers ended up being biased.
replies(2): >>42902636 #>>42903438 #
j-krieger ◴[] No.42902636[source]
They sometimes are. If you're using a biased source to fact-check, you're just transitively applying that bias.
replies(1): >>42906516 #
lucb1e ◴[] No.42906516[source]
I do feel like there is a limit to how biased a source can be when it tries to be based in evidence, though. Nobody would disagree that 1+1=2, basic physics tells one that COVID is not spread by 5G towers, the climate has warmed enough that you can dump weather records into a spreadsheet and see the effect without needing to measure CO2 at all. That COVID causes disease and a warming climate causes more extreme weather is also rather easy to corroborate. Accepting the obvious is already a good starting point for deciding whether climate policy XYZ is good or not (combined with other basic facts and every party's proposals), but it seems to me that the current striving for unbiasedness leads to giving lunatics equal air time. Any amount of fact checking would at least remove this level of misinformedness
replies(1): >>42908621 #
hackyhacky ◴[] No.42908621[source]
> Nobody would disagree that 1+1=2, basic physics tells one that COVID is not spread by 5G towers,

But yet people believe these things, and will believe a source that supports them. What's obvious to you is not obvious to others.

replies(2): >>42911033 #>>42911861 #
johnnyanmac ◴[] No.42911861[source]
Okay? Then you disprove their claims and their bad sources. If they don't want to understand that, there's nothing to do. They are not a reasonable audience to debate with logos at that point.

Them denying nature's truth doesn't allieve them from nature's forces.

replies(1): >>42912802 #
hackyhacky ◴[] No.42912802[source]
Do you honestly think that people who believe these things will be swayed by facts and evidence?

Go watch some flat earther videos on YouTube. Lots of people are very committed to a particular conclusion and have developed elaborate processes for disregarding evidence that would persuade a rational person.

The US political system right now is built on believing easily disprovable lies. Unfortunately, their bad choices affect everyone.

replies(2): >>42915069 #>>42919714 #
1. lucb1e ◴[] No.42919714[source]
> Do you honestly think that people who believe these things will be swayed by facts and evidence?

I've got two data points to offer!

For one, some research from last year showed that

> Over three rounds of back-and-forth interaction, [a tuned version of GPT-4 Turbo], also known as DebunkBot, was able to significantly reduce individuals’ beliefs in the particular theory the believer articulated, as well as lessen their conspiratorial mindset more generally — a result that proved durable for at least two months.

https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/mit-study-ai-c...

It's not like the chatbot gave them a beating or something, so it must be appeals to reason and evidence that did something? At least, that's my takeaway

Second data point is an anecdote. I somehow ended up on this flat earther youtube video where they had gotten their viewers to fund them an expedition to the south pole (wtf is a south pole if the earth is flat? Where did they fly out to? Idk, they seemed to have an alternative hypothesis in case the earth really was flat, such that this "experiment" mattered) to, and I shit you not, observe that the sun does not set during summer. Why they didn't just ask someone living beyond the (ant)arctic circle, I don't know, but so they're stood there watching the sun, waiting for it to set. It didn't, and after another glance at a wristwatch that it really is midnight, they now said they believed that the earth is in fact round because their alternative hypothesis had been disproven

Whether many of the viewers on youtube believed it, I have no idea. Also conspicuously missing from the video was any sort of remark hinting at "gee, what everyone outside of our little community said turned out to be right, I wonder if maybe this could mean that there isn't some big conspiracy going on", so perhaps they'll go on to believe the next useless thing now and it was all for naught? I'm not deep enough into conspiracy theory, but it does seem to me that: if you get them to work it all out (whatever that means for them) to a point where there is an experiment you can sensibly do, or evidence they can obtain or so, they'll actually be swayed if given that evidence. Or at least some of them are. (Or maybe these are just really good actors and getting a free holiday to the most exclusive continent by becoming famous was their long con all along, who's to say, but I'm inclined to apply occam's and hanlon's razors.)