Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I always try to separate facts, deduction and values.

* We can agree and disagree about the facts. This is the worst case and it is probably not worth discussing and try to change someone's mind if we disagree about basic facts.

* One can discuss the logic/deduction that goes from these facts. That's probably the most meaningful thing to discuss and one can try to change somebody's mind on that.

* People have different value systems (i.e. what's important for the society and how much). And here there is no right or wrong. At best one can agree that our values are different, and it can be worth discussing (but likely nobody will change their mind)



I'd say the last one is the worst case. For we might disagree on facts, but if we both have shared values with respect to which methods and forms of evidence are valid ways of obtaining facts about our shared reality (and which ones are not), then in principle disagreements of fact can be resolved by giving evidence.

Eg, if we both agree with the standards of journalistic integrity and can thus agree that certain outlets are reputable enough to publish retractions when they get things wrong, then we can at least agree on facts published in reputable news outlets. But, if we do not have a shared value in the form of respect for the process of journalism, then one side is free to reject any fact they don't like as "fake news", and neither the amount nor quality of news sources cited will ever change this.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: