Love this. And i'm gonna use it. Partly because I realize that it is more or less what i've learned to do. But my first thought in reading this was to remember the ferry-disaster scene in Spiderman: Homecoming: after the bad guys slice the Staten Island ferry in two, Spiderman uses his webbing to hold the two halves together and, while he's taking a breath, his handy AI coach affirms, "Great job, Peter. You're 98% successful." To which he responds, nervously, "98?" And then the webs snap. Oh My!
So, congrats on your acronym achievement. That's a good one. TRUTH, indeed. And ypu've made systematic what i know i do rather unsystematically - i.e. sloppily.
T: I'm a big fan of falsifiability!
-
R: This is more or less my Occam's Razor step. But you bring a lot more to it, which is great!
-
U: Context, context, context!!!
-
T: Yes, feelings. This makes me think of the Sufi notion of three gates through which our words must qualify in order to pass through (i came across this in an Eknath Easwaran book): Are these words true? Are these words necessary? Are these words kind?
-
H: Action, which, for me, recapitulates the radical (albeit simply stated) dialectic of learning and change (if not revolution) that Brazilian philosopher of education Paulo Freire based his work on: action, reflection, action.
In my grade school years we learned what was later called "critical thinking". We learned to read (no t.v. then) the newspaper article and consider what is factual and not so much fact; today there seems to be more opinion attached to an article than full discussion of the facts. Since there is so much electronic information sources I explain to the Grand and Great grand children that facts get a little twisted to meet a presenter's opinion. If they want to watch/listen to news, cover the screen of the t.v. or turn your back listen to the words, listen to the presenters (apparent) emotions, go to more than once source if an article seems questionable, and most of all, don't watch or listen go to the paper source for it is easier to decipher fact from opinion there. Amen, pass the plate.
I'm glad you mention "critical thinking" to which i, too, was first exposed in primary school, albeit, it was a catholic school in post-Quiet Revolution Quebec, so "what would god say" was still a requisite step in learning. Ick, of course. I've since both explored and taught so-called "critical thinking" at all level's of our education system. And perpetually run up against the common sense notion of "critical" meaning "fault-finding." It needn't be only that, and yet, it is pretty much hegemonic amongst teachers and scholars alike. My response has been to develop a concept (for which I wish there was one word in english) of "critical-creative" thinking (which i learned from a good friend who was both a teacher, a scholar, and an artist (she'd been a student of Corita Kent in the 60s/70s). Not to wax on about all the nuances of this, I think this idea connects nicely with all of A.J.'s system steps but perhaps most strongly with the last about "action."
Threat? We do not have a good definition of "civilization" of course. Think of how uncivilized all nation-states have been! The IDEAL of a truly civilized nation-state and/or empire has NEVER been lived up to even 75%. In a general sense, 75% "foolproof" is not likely to lead to no misinformation. Even 97% would not really do it. The steps outlined are vaguely similar to what is called the Hermeneutic Circle and/or the Scientific Method. (Most natural scientists like to call it the scientific method but in a broader philosophical sense it is similar to an approach that goes beyond the ways in which scientists who study "nature" try to pretend they do their actual empirical research.) I like it. But "misinformation" is not just a matter of not following those steps. It would be nice if it were just as simple as that. Recently it has been discovered that while much medical research has assumed those with a biological sex of female are pretty much the same as those who are biologically deemed to be male (usually only because of a penis, however small). But it turns out even the internal organs shared by both women and men are different when it comes to how people should be treated. It was a giant mistake. We don't have to go into the history of "science" and/or "philosophy" to see that incorrect axioms (at step one ) often mislead in a huge way. Similarly, few so-called "Christians" (who come in an amazing variety, even more varieties than popcorn packages!) read Paul Tillich seriously about how something called "God" in English (Gott in Hochdeutsch, etc.) is absolutely "timeless" hence the ideas of Heaven and Hell are merely metaphors. Remember, Dante wrote a "poem" note a serious theological tract. So, yes: 75% foolproof! The kicker is the other 25%. Remember, the DNA of chimps is 97% (or so) similar to the DNA of human beings (described as the animal homo sapien sapiens). Garbage In - Garbage Out is a particular problem for the various shades of AI. I am ranting because I am 79 years old and old men love to rant (and tell dad jokes)!
I don’t know, A. J., this sounds like an awful lot of work. 😓
Love this. And i'm gonna use it. Partly because I realize that it is more or less what i've learned to do. But my first thought in reading this was to remember the ferry-disaster scene in Spiderman: Homecoming: after the bad guys slice the Staten Island ferry in two, Spiderman uses his webbing to hold the two halves together and, while he's taking a breath, his handy AI coach affirms, "Great job, Peter. You're 98% successful." To which he responds, nervously, "98?" And then the webs snap. Oh My!
So, congrats on your acronym achievement. That's a good one. TRUTH, indeed. And ypu've made systematic what i know i do rather unsystematically - i.e. sloppily.
T: I'm a big fan of falsifiability!
-
R: This is more or less my Occam's Razor step. But you bring a lot more to it, which is great!
-
U: Context, context, context!!!
-
T: Yes, feelings. This makes me think of the Sufi notion of three gates through which our words must qualify in order to pass through (i came across this in an Eknath Easwaran book): Are these words true? Are these words necessary? Are these words kind?
-
H: Action, which, for me, recapitulates the radical (albeit simply stated) dialectic of learning and change (if not revolution) that Brazilian philosopher of education Paulo Freire based his work on: action, reflection, action.
-
Again: well done!
In my grade school years we learned what was later called "critical thinking". We learned to read (no t.v. then) the newspaper article and consider what is factual and not so much fact; today there seems to be more opinion attached to an article than full discussion of the facts. Since there is so much electronic information sources I explain to the Grand and Great grand children that facts get a little twisted to meet a presenter's opinion. If they want to watch/listen to news, cover the screen of the t.v. or turn your back listen to the words, listen to the presenters (apparent) emotions, go to more than once source if an article seems questionable, and most of all, don't watch or listen go to the paper source for it is easier to decipher fact from opinion there. Amen, pass the plate.
I'm glad you mention "critical thinking" to which i, too, was first exposed in primary school, albeit, it was a catholic school in post-Quiet Revolution Quebec, so "what would god say" was still a requisite step in learning. Ick, of course. I've since both explored and taught so-called "critical thinking" at all level's of our education system. And perpetually run up against the common sense notion of "critical" meaning "fault-finding." It needn't be only that, and yet, it is pretty much hegemonic amongst teachers and scholars alike. My response has been to develop a concept (for which I wish there was one word in english) of "critical-creative" thinking (which i learned from a good friend who was both a teacher, a scholar, and an artist (she'd been a student of Corita Kent in the 60s/70s). Not to wax on about all the nuances of this, I think this idea connects nicely with all of A.J.'s system steps but perhaps most strongly with the last about "action."
Threat? We do not have a good definition of "civilization" of course. Think of how uncivilized all nation-states have been! The IDEAL of a truly civilized nation-state and/or empire has NEVER been lived up to even 75%. In a general sense, 75% "foolproof" is not likely to lead to no misinformation. Even 97% would not really do it. The steps outlined are vaguely similar to what is called the Hermeneutic Circle and/or the Scientific Method. (Most natural scientists like to call it the scientific method but in a broader philosophical sense it is similar to an approach that goes beyond the ways in which scientists who study "nature" try to pretend they do their actual empirical research.) I like it. But "misinformation" is not just a matter of not following those steps. It would be nice if it were just as simple as that. Recently it has been discovered that while much medical research has assumed those with a biological sex of female are pretty much the same as those who are biologically deemed to be male (usually only because of a penis, however small). But it turns out even the internal organs shared by both women and men are different when it comes to how people should be treated. It was a giant mistake. We don't have to go into the history of "science" and/or "philosophy" to see that incorrect axioms (at step one ) often mislead in a huge way. Similarly, few so-called "Christians" (who come in an amazing variety, even more varieties than popcorn packages!) read Paul Tillich seriously about how something called "God" in English (Gott in Hochdeutsch, etc.) is absolutely "timeless" hence the ideas of Heaven and Hell are merely metaphors. Remember, Dante wrote a "poem" note a serious theological tract. So, yes: 75% foolproof! The kicker is the other 25%. Remember, the DNA of chimps is 97% (or so) similar to the DNA of human beings (described as the animal homo sapien sapiens). Garbage In - Garbage Out is a particular problem for the various shades of AI. I am ranting because I am 79 years old and old men love to rant (and tell dad jokes)!