One of the core issues with “truth” is that today, no matter where you go on
the internet, someone can claim that is “fake news” or not truth.  What is
needed is a rigorous measure of “truth” which will not be denied.



Whenever there is lack of consensus, this shows up in places like Wikipedia
as a polarizing “edit war”.  As people polarize, everyone descends to
finding any possible argument, no matter how poor (it converts nobody), and
yell it at the other side.  As things get worse, things fork into competing
religions or political parties.  People attending their favored church
building, yelling any argument they can find to nobody listening,
since the other
side is in a different building, doing the same.



The way to resolve problems is to get down to “first principles
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jamesclear.com_first-2Dprinciples&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2hxJ-omwBDOZr0cCBmXq1xaPhVfS_Ucuh0CONlsOwEw&s=4ZkaA6gVSsRGFMrenL3VRKeujwU050HjJh6VP6rG9TM&e= >”.  While there are lots of
problems like “confirmation bias” that need to be addressed, I believe
these are not first principles, so will not address core problems.  The
concept of “truth” includes at least these two first principles:



1.    The closest we can get to truth is a “scientific consensus”.

2.    Even scientific consensus can be disrupted by revolutionary new
discoveries.



So, we first create a wiki system with camps, changing win/lose edit wars
to a win/win camp system with no censoring.  Each side can create and join
their own camp.  This provides a rigorous, real time, measure of consensus.



People’s initial prejudices tend to be that: “You can’t determine truth via
popular consensus.”  Though a default algorithm may be 1 person one vote or
“popular” consensus.  We don’t want to measure this, because it is right,
we want to measure this because that which you measure, improves.  We need
to be able to compare the popular consensus to “expert
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_53-2DPeer-2DRanking-2DAlgorithms_19&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2hxJ-omwBDOZr0cCBmXq1xaPhVfS_Ucuh0CONlsOwEw&s=HkHCrtmtc2KG972rehT7JlqX6FHW_m3BCrOb5tmSJwQ&e= >” consensus.



However, even that is problematic, since some people’s experts, are
another’s devil worshipers.  So, we should provide not only the ability to
select different canonizing algorithms, we should also provide algorithms
which only counts the vote of only a set of experts that any target person
will trust.  If someone believes Trump is the soul source of truth, for
example, they are free to request an algorithm which only counts the vote
of Trump.



Given all that, we can pull people back together in a way which real
measured communication can take place.  Everyone filtering and prioritizing
things any way they want.  If the minority expert consensus says global
warming is a problem, while the popular consensus thinks it is not a problem,
you formalize and measure that current problematic state of things.
Now, instead
of just yelling any argument the experts can find at the other side, you
can measure how well a newly discovered evidence or argument works.  The
quality of the argument can be determined by how many people jump camps
when it is presented.



If you present arguments, using the terminology and algorithms trusted by
that target camp, they are not going to be claiming that is “fake news”
  If the issue in contention is a scientifically verifiable ‘truth”  even
only using trusted evidence and arguments from the other side will
eventually work.  And again, whether it is working or not, must be measured.



The focus should be on falsifiability.  The good camps should be able to
describe the kind of experimental results that would falsify that camp, for
that camp’s supporters.  Once each camp has done this, it is then just up
to the experimentalists to force a scientific consensus.



Once you have achieved a definitively measured consensus, you can then throw
things back to Wikipedia, confidently knowing there will no longer be edit
wars, since everyone now accepts it as “truth.”



At least until that first expert realizes there is a lot of ‘confirmation
bias” (or any other problem) in that “truth” and starts the process all over
.



That’s what canonizer.com is all about.

On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 4:55 PM Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
> Hi Jamie. Honestly, I think this is a brilliant blueprint! Indeed, I have
> proposed a couple of the ideas in various forms at my own university when
> I worked as a Dean, but never made any progress. The odd institution here &
> there (depending on where you live) have implemented "innovation zones" or
> more open spaces -- literally and intellectually -- along the lines of what
> you're proposing, but we have a long way to go. In my case, I tried
> reforming from within, mostly in terms of opening up the curriculum &
> creating more space for interdisciplinary pursuits, but also in terms of
> the systematic "check in" idea targeting first-year students. Not
> surprisingly, real innovative changes were/are always met with resistance.
> Not only does each discipline reflexively dig in (e.g., fighting for hires
> for their own departments), but I then learned that the different sectors
> ALSO, at the end of the day, mainly focus on protecting their units (IT,
> budget, academic counseling, library, etc.).
>
> I'd like to take your ideas and meld them w/ a few other great pedagogical
> ideas not so much to create appendages (though I'm not opposed to that),
> but so that we could re-design the 21-century university. In most cases,
> we are still operating as 20th century institutions in so many ways. At
> least some academics, therefore, are turning increasingly toward other
> media platforms, podcasts, blogs, and other ways to engage communities and
> share info, as everyone here knows. At the same time, we've seen a
> measurable "brain drain" from the academy too, as we have produced far more
> PhDs than we can employ AND many of the best & brightest have turned to
> opportunities outside of the academy for a variety of reasons. Also, many
> universities (mine included) have established university-business &
> univ-health partnerships, to mutual benefit. We are doing more of that not
> just in engineering & the hard sciences, but also in areas as diverse as
> community planning to government internships to working w/ foundations. If
> we are *not* going to massively reform from within along the lines you're
> suggesting, at the very least universities will need to be more imaginative
> & forward-thinking in their pedagogy and partnerships. For example, our
> best math teacher (ever!) has been working w/ the local school boards to
> help revise their curricula AND to recruit some of them & retired math
> teachers to create more university-prep level courses and exciting ways to
> combine math with other programs of interest. And we have an "innovation
> hub" that we established when I was a Dean in the downtown core of our
> city, which has helped spawn a number of partnerships w/ local businesses
> and non-profits alike. And students are getting credit & experience, as
> they are in many variations of that theme in other universities. So,
> there's hope. But the big issue would be if we could do a massive
> realignment along the lines of what you've described and, as per my obvious
> bias, if we could rethink things from a TOK perspective or some version of
> a more open pursuit of truth combined with a focus on "consilience." A few
> universities have such a focus, but these are few and far between. 90+
> percent are still structured in the main around conventional disciplines
> and departments, each with their required courses & electives -- and most
> faculty in these programs have an attitude along the lines of: "I can't be
> bothered to worry about what they're doing in dept 'x'; we just need to be
> sure we're awesome in OUR department!"
>
> Best regards, -Joe
>
> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>
> Professor
>
> King’s University College at Western University
>
> 266 Epworth Avenue, DL-201
>
> London, Ontario, Canada  N6A 2M3
>
> Tel: (519) 433-3491
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ______________________
>
> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jamie D <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 14, 2020 6:06 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: Academia truth problem
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
> Good read Joe,
>
> Since a) learning is best done in wonder, and b) students still need to
> grind through at least some fundamentals, if even to find wonder:
>
> Why not have an institution, perhaps an appendage to universities, with an
> epistemological code starting with:
>
> 1) first and foremost, be not just open to error in self and others, but
> *desire* our error to be found, enjoy it lovingly in a community where
> this need not be feared nor too costly. (as it is everywhere else, because
> your peers share the rule, thus won't abuse it if you're the only one, thus
> more feelings of safety, vulnerability, more openness, more info-Flow. (*harder
> sciences have the physical world to demand this already, but for softer
> sciences, we can't go far unless we instill this as one's source of honor.
> But even more, it would be socially innovative)*
>
> 2) require a short course in epistemology, make the principles softly
> religious for the community.
> 3) let students live together or nearby, like summer camp for adults,
> maybe grouped by community into varous subjects but nearby enough for
> plenty of interdisciplinary conversation.
> 4) experts from the nearby university can visit to give lectures, have
> meetups, host presentations, etc.
> 5) give students 2 or 4, or however many years to follow their dreams with
> regular check-ins to make sure there is legit work and progress without
> abuse.
>
> *....*then, just go nuts. Play like children. With the academy next door,
> experts can balance out the free and abundant internet content and courses.
> Other students will be able to check each other, free from ego (or more
> free than anywhere else on earth.) And maybe epistemologists can be elected
> to run trials and debates, kinda like judges. Communities could evolve
> freely with just these few rules and I think it would be the life many want
> to live.
>
> It would be interesting sociologically in many wars, like how the status
> hierarchies would develop in such a culture that filters out what I call
> "frame control".
>
> *most people seem to unconsciously control the intersubjective "frame" "
> as to stay on top, murdering any attempt the humble and honest (thus
> intimidating but they won't admit it)  person might make towards sincere
> mutual understanding. This wasn't that severe in Eastern cultures, but here
> in the west, we need a taste of freedom from that, open the doors to real
> connection, intellectually yes, but I'm confident it would lead to more
> emotional intimacy, less social stress, more kindness, etc...all from that
> one principle to desire to find our error (We'd all feel safer, since this
> one demand would...demand mutual vulnerability and acceptance.
>
> The costs would be extremely low, possibly down to the floor, maybe like a
> co-op to test the idea at first ( and we know how many leftists students
> from Academia would love the similarity to a commune). Grad Students could
> have their own jobs, but they could live in these areas designated for
> creativity and knowledge-generation unburdened by the incentives of scarce
> status, as university incentives would be replaced with random incentives
> offered by anyone, to whatever fruit is born. The freedom would launch an
> explosion of creativity, fun, and perhaps away of life many, many would
> yearn for...kind of a religious monkhood for epistemology governing any and
> all other pursuits within.
>
> With costs so low, maybe it would spread like wildfire as a desperately
> needed and meaningful way of life, maybe even long term - a blend of
> lifestyle, culture and university.
>
> I live in SF, and even I have trouble finding anything like the community
> I had in college - a house full of other intellects constantly debating -
> which was great, but this would be the dream.
>
> What else does the university system have to keep up with the times?
>
> Jamie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 9:39 AM Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Jamie. I'll respond simply because this is precisely the question --
> perhaps* the* main issue -- I have long studied. I've framed the answer
> in part in terms of "intellectual
>
> partisanship," which combines the theorizing about confirmation bias with
> my background in sociology to emphasize the social forces & social
> locations that shape the pursuit of truth claims (and who ends up being our
> allies in these pursuits, etc.). There
>
> are indeed many different motivations for pursuing truth and, in my
> experience, it is the rarest of individuals who genuinely are committed to
> pure truth-seeking just because of their passion for understanding.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Instead, we all have other forces operating on us and these almost always
> bend us "away from the light" (if pure light = pure truth, or
> enlightenment). There are
>
> both psychological mechanisms and social forces operating, which Gregg's
> theory outlines and that I emphasize in my "sociological models." I learned
> early on, for
>
> example, that I had to stop highlighting so many of my limitations in my
> own work to get published. Instead, it was important to (over-)emphasize
> the strength of my arguments & findings, to convince the peer reviewers &
> editors to publish. I almost stopped
>
> completely from pointing out my own flaws. As a mentor finally explained,
> "Joe, let the reviewers find all the problems; don't make it EASY for 'em!"
> I don't/didn't always believe in my own arguments, but have had to pass
> them off as "the best approximation
>
> of truth" to get stuff published, get tenure, etc. In the broader sense,
> we all have to present "the best" of ourselves & our contributions to
> secure recognition, status, & other scarce resources. What I learned is
> simply not to confuse all of that with "the
>
> truth."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As others have commented & as I have tried to convey, I will build up an
> argument & try to be careful about my "truth claims" in many forums,
> including in my teaching,
>
> with the best arguments & evidence that I can. But it's then possible to
> critique and acknowledge the limits of our knowledge claims, but
> challenging. To genuinely pursue knowledge
>
> and "wisdom", one must recognize the limitations of one's own social
> location and the psych mechanisms impeding progress -- & especially the
> "ego", as the psychologists can better explain. Thus I'll be the first to
> admit that the irony of the academy as an
>
> institution dedicated to "truth-seeking" is that it's constructed in such
> a way to ensure certain limits on our pursuit of truth. We are just as
> subject to confirmation biases & echo chambers (especially within our
> disciplines) as most other folks, although
>
> there's at least a bit of an advantage via the peer review system &
> critiques that ensue. But, as I & others have shown, even there you can
> "bias" the reactions in favor of your positions if you choose the right
> journals, editors, and even the right "language"
>
> to make your claims. If I can establish an interpersonal connection and
> intimacy with those critiquing my work, I can gain a favorable advantage in
> terms of getting a positive review. Since it's usually a "blind review,"
> it's more challenging -- but not impossible.
>
> For example, I can be sure to cite the "important figures" favorably in my
> arguments or literally include the work of those who I anticipate might be
> reviewing my paper. That's one example, but it happens all the time. One
> learns how to play the publishing
>
> game. It's better than much of the unvetted stuff off the internet &
> certainly in most social media, but it's not the "Truth" with a capital T
> either.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A lot of people, therefore, look outside of the academy and develop other
> sorts of relationships & venues within which to pursue truth. That's what
> we are trying
>
> to do here, for example. And your last comment definitely coincides with
> my own experience: "In my
>
> experience, talking with academics who haven't learned humility is often
> stressful.... Anything they don't understand immediately must be pounced on
> like an opportunity to best the other, which suggest a fear of being bested
> underneath."  Indeed, the vast
>
> majority of academicians I've met are: a) neither humble; b) nor convinced
> that they could actually be "wrong" about much of anything, even beyond
> their own fields of expertise (considerable research bears this out, btw).
> I tell my students that if they encounter
>
> professors who seem to "know everything" and convey such an air of
> superiority, then run! It's also why I'm "just Joe" to my students & I
> explain early on that I'm learning all the time too. But, to be honest,
> they yearn for an "expert" or an "authority" in
>
> many cases, who can tell them "what's true." I try to share my expertise,
> to be sure, where I have something pragmatic & helpful to share. But the
> biggest & more important message is precisely what you're getting at w/
> your query.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Practically, that means in my own case that I will always take the time to
> sit down and listen to someone's talk, even if &
>
> *especially* if I'm not sure of or in agreement w/ their positions. I'd
> rather hear & learn from them, or at least better understand why I
> disagree. Of course, institutionally, we're set up often NOT to do that. In
> my 33 years of teaching sociology and
>
> being affiliated with four different institutions as a "faculty member",
> no one has EVER suggested that we bring in a "psychologist" or an
> "economist" to our next departmental colloquium meeting. And certainly not
> a physicist. BTW, to combat that problem,
>
> I started a series at my university a few years back to have anyone from
> any faculty or department present once a month of Friday at noon with pizza
> served, just to allow people to get to know each other's work and to engage
> in colleagues from other departments.
>
> It has worked to a degree (there are 4-5 people who always go, no matter
> who's the presenter), but even here it's usually the case that most
> attendees are from the same department as the presenter! While encouraging
> "heterodoxy," most people seem more comfortable
>
> with "orthodoxy"! Plus, it's easier simply to understand people who
> already "speak your language."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In teaching, I always try to convey to students, then, the importance of:
> 1) being humble before the vast unknown; 2) being willing to say "I don't
> know" (or be
>
> willing to ask for directions if lost, as I often am!); 3) sharing what
> you are most confident about in a helpful way that transcends ego; 4) daily
> & disciplined study workouts to strengthen our mind's "muscles" and
> "endurance" for the intellectual marathon
>
> we're running; 5) being inspired by open-mindedness & the joy of the
> "a-ha" moments we have as we keep learning; 6)
>
> appreciating that we can only know so much ourselves & it's okay sometimes
> to conclude, "hmmm, what person "x" is saying makes sense and I think I'll
> try
>
> to incorporate that understanding into my own as I move forward."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think you're right on the money in asking, so I hope my thoughts here
> are helpful in terms of a bit of what I've learned about the conundrum.
> Cheers, -Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jamie D <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 14, 2020 11:45 AM
>
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> *Subject:* Academia truth problem
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> This might be a bit left-field, but I'm curious to hear all your thoughts:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. Academia was created to institutionalize truth seeking.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. If academics are all motivated for money, status, tenure, prestige,
> their families, and not a direct passion for truth....how can Academia
> fullfill it's purpose? Don't the incentives put a
>
> cap on how far the academy can progress into the horizon of mystery?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In my experience, talking with academics who haven't learned humility is
> often  stressful.... Anything they don't understand immediately must be
> pounced on like an opportunity to best the other,
>
> which suggest a fear of being bested underneath. And that fear of being
> wrong is the first thing to be removed if you seek truth!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jamie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> -Jamie
>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
>
>
>
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
>
>
>
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> -Jamie
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1