Changes

[[Image:Jdfu6r7.JPG|right|thumb|''Sapere aude!'' The Enlightenment thinker [[John Locke]].]]

[[Image:Jdfu6r7.JPG|right|thumb|''Sapere aude!'' The Enlightenment thinker [[John Locke]].]]

The '''hearsay society''' is a term used to describe a prevailing current of thought, stemming in large part from the popularity of [[Wikipedia]], that discourages making statements unless a reference can be found to others having said them already; and if a reference is found, then the statements are considered true regardless of whether the reference consists of unreliable [[hearsay]]. This is a form of [[intellectual cowardice]], and can lead to the propagation of misleading, incorrect or deliberately untrue information, while some individuals abandon even the attempt at using their own [[logic]] or thinking for themselves.  In the hearsay society the use of [[hearsay]] is so rampant that participants can lose the ability to recognize the difference between what is hearsay, and what is not.

The '''hearsay society''' is a term used to describe a prevailing current of thought, stemming in large part from the popularity of [[Wikipedia]], that discourages making statements unless a reference can be found to others having said them already; '''Incorrect. This is only for highly dubious statements presented as fact which are not widely acknowledged throughout the academic/scientific community. For example, if writing a paper on the discovery of DNA, there would be no need to cite the source for the date "1953". It's a widely known and accepted fact that the discovery of DNA was 1953. Now, if a contestable statement is presented, it would need to be corroborated by authoritative/reliable sources (e.g. no sources with obvious political bias like Conservapedia) to be accepted as having some sort of truth-value. If it's from an obviously unreliable source, then it wouldn't be credited as being true.''' and if a reference is found, then the statements are considered true regardless of whether the reference consists of unreliable [[hearsay]]. '''Incorrect. Refer to the previous bolded statement.''' This is a form of [[intellectual cowardice]], and can lead to the propagation of misleading, incorrect or deliberately untrue information, while some individuals abandon even the attempt at using their own [[logic]] or thinking for themselves. '''Interestingly, this article doesn't source its own outlandish statements, in some hilarious ironic act of defiance against the non-existent "liberal media"''' In the hearsay society the use of [[hearsay]] is so rampant that participants can lose the ability to recognize the difference between what is hearsay, and what is not. '''Except that a society of such scale would never emerge from even a remote intellectual undercurrent. Slipperly slope fallacy.'''

'''Example''': when confronted with the logic and even miracles performed by [[Jesus]], [[Pharisees]] insisted that Jesus cite "authorities" for his truths.  Imagine listening to the [[Prodigal Son]] and then asking the absurd question, ''do you have any references for this?''

'''Example''': when confronted with the logic and even miracles performed by [[Jesus]], [[Pharisees]] insisted that Jesus cite "authorities" for his truths.  Imagine listening to the [[Prodigal Son]] and then asking the absurd question, ''do you have any references for this?''

'''Except that parables are meant to illustrate lessons or specific points through metaphorical trope. This would not be a conceivable question in the first place. Yet another attempt by wacko conservatives to shame free-thinking individuals.'''

==Wikipedia's role==

==Wikipedia's role==

The online encyclopedia [[Wikipedia]] is fundamentally based on a form of [[hearsay]]. Assertions made in Wikipedia articles are required to be supported by references; this superficially gives an impression of rigor, but in practice it leads to a [[parrot]]ting of the opinions of others and a negation of the individual's ability to use his intelligence to make connections and insights based on [[logic]]. Wikipedia typically dismisses logical inferences as original research; according to Wikipedia policy, this is contrary to the aspiration (itself highly problematic) that articles should present topics from a neutral point of view. As a result, such inferences are swiftly deleted, regardless of their insight or obvious truth.

The online encyclopedia [[Wikipedia]] is fundamentally based on a form of [[hearsay]]. Assertions made in Wikipedia articles are required to be supported by references; this superficially gives an impression of rigor, but in practice it leads to a [[parrot]]ting of the opinions of others and a negation of the individual's ability to use his intelligence to make connections and insights based on [[logic]]. '''No, not at all. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, first and foremost. Encyclopedias are compendiums of pre-established knowledge held to wide consensus and most importantly corroborated by verifiable fact. What's held as accurate knowledge changes over time, so Wikipedia will adjust its references as new knowledge pours in. Further, Wiki explicitly forbids the presentation of articles from a first-person/essay-style perspective. This is original thought; primary knowledge as opposed to the tertiary, pre-established nature of encyclopedias. Generally, Wikipedia allows both sides of a story a fair hearing. This is why you would see wacko creationists listed on Wiki along with criticisms of it. It's just reporting fact in a neutral manner. But it knows better than to treat every claim as if it were equal in truth, which is what you pitiful editors want it to do.''' Wikipedia typically dismisses logical inferences as original research; according to Wikipedia policy, this is contrary to the aspiration (itself highly problematic) that articles should present topics from a neutral point of view. As a result, such inferences are swiftly deleted, regardless of their insight or obvious truth. '''Again, original research is not tertiary knowledge.'''

While original research is permitted on other Wikimedia projects, such as [[Wikiversity]] and [[Wikibooks]], these sites are typically obscure and have negligible impact compared to Wikipedia. They may even have been established deliberately to channel original thought away from the mass exposure it would receive on Wikipedia.

While original research is permitted on other Wikimedia projects, such as [[Wikiversity]] and [[Wikibooks]],'''because those are institutions which disseminate original research to academia for wide consideration before being inculcated into the body of knowledge as (more or less) established fact. This is a standard process of verifying knowledge. What you describe is an integrity issue, nothing more.''' these sites are typically obscure and have negligible impact compared to Wikipedia '''they serve different audiences and have different goals. Derp'''. They may even have been established deliberately to channel original thought away from the mass exposure it would receive on Wikipedia.'''Yeah, no. There's no conspiracy there, buddy. God, you're more divorced from reality than I initially thought.'''

Thanks to the growth and popularity of Wikipedia, the flawed expectation that all statements must be referenced has spread elsewhere, both in online communities and wider society, to the point where many are reluctant to express any view unless others have said it first. The result is a '''hearsay society''', where popularly-espoused "facts" are repeated and circulated endlessly, while truths and new insights are shut out, ignored or actively [[censorship|censored]]. Influenced by Wikipedia, some individuals will vehemently demand references in all kinds of situations where it is patently unnecessary or even absurd to do so.

Thanks to the growth and popularity of Wikipedia, the flawed expectation that all statements must be referenced has spread elsewhere '''Nope. Not all statements, just dubious ones presented as fact. This attitude has always existed. It has nothing to do with Wiki's popularity. Wiki just formatted itself in accordance with its project. If it's going to be an encyclopedia, you cite reliable sources when making particular statements about things.''', both in online communities and wider society, to the point where many are reluctant to express any view unless others have said it first. '''Lol no.''' The result is a '''hearsay society''', where popularly-espoused "facts" are repeated and circulated endlessly, while truths and new insights are shut out, ignored or actively [[censorship|censored]].'''Not at all. Novel, controversial yet well-sourced and corroborated information is given a very fair hearing. You also reduce the sphere of intellectual interactions tot hat of hearsay. This is problematic because the process is much wider and complex than what it and isn't hearsay. It's the broader problematic of verifying knowledge. Science in particular is very self-criticizing and is always looking to improve presently existing bodies of knowledge in accordance with novel, corroborated information. This willingness to adapt to change is beneficial for several reasons.'''  Influenced by Wikipedia, some individuals will vehemently demand references in all kinds of situations where it is patently unnecessary or even absurd to do so.'''Yeah, no. Slippery slope fallacy again.'''

===Degradation of standards===

===Degradation of standards===

An insistence that all statements must be referenced also leads to a gradual lowering of standards for what references are acceptable. For example, a contributor might want to add obvious statement A to an article, but has difficulty finding a reference. He eventually finds statement A made in source B, which is of questionable quality; he adds the reference and the source is allowed to pass in that instance because of a commonsense desire among those involved to have statement A in the article. But future contributors can then take that use of source B as a precedent and use it to reference other, more questionable statements. Over time, this flawed system inevitably leads to progressively worse and worse sources being used, resulting in ever more hearsay and misleading or wrong information diluting the usable content.

An insistence that all statements must be referenced also leads to a gradual lowering of standards for what references are acceptable. For example, a contributor might want to add obvious statement A to an article, but has difficulty finding a reference. '''If it's a self-evident statement, it wouldn't need to be sourced. Derp.''' He eventually finds statement A made in source B, which is of questionable quality'''If the statement itself is reliable, you would publish it.'''; he adds the reference and the source is allowed to pass in that instance because of a commonsense desire among those involved to have statement A in the article.'''No.''' But future contributors can then take that use of source B as a precedent and use it to reference other, more questionable statements. Over time, this flawed system inevitably leads to progressively worse and worse sources being used, resulting in ever more hearsay and misleading or wrong information diluting the usable content.'''Slippery slope fallacy. And you suspiciously forget to mention that Wikipedia and other publications actively monitor for factually inaccurate information as part of their platform to maintain academic integrity.'''

==Comparison with the Enlightenment==

==Comparison with the Enlightenment==

[[Image:392.jpg|right|thumb|180px|[[Voltaire]]: An opponent of [[censorship]] who would not have approved of the hearsay society.]]

[[Image:392.jpg|right|thumb|180px|[[Voltaire]]: An opponent of [[censorship]] who would not have approved of the hearsay society. '''Because the concept is ridiculous. And it's not censorship. You're twisting his ideals to fit your grotesque caricature of a liberal-dominated world.''']]

Ironically, this subservience to hearsay and the authority of others is antithetical to the spirit of the [[Enlightenment]] which gave birth to the first encyclopedia and the [[scientific method]] - even though many of its most diligent proponents would claim to be scientists themselves. The motto of the Enlightenment was ''Sapere aude!'' - ie "Dare to know [for yourself]!" rather than uncritically accept what you are told. This has been twisted out of all recognition by today's self-proclaimed "scientific community" and other groups, as they claim to idolize the great scientific thinkers while rejecting the spirit of inquiry that brought them their success.

Ironically, this subservience to hearsay and the authority of others is antithetical to the spirit of the [[Enlightenment]] which gave birth to the first encyclopedia and the [[scientific method]] - even though many of its most diligent proponents would claim to be scientists themselves. The motto of the Enlightenment was ''Sapere aude!'' - ie "Dare to know [for yourself]!" rather than uncritically accept what you are told.'''And this is what scientists do, you moron.''' This has been twisted out of all recognition by today's self-proclaimed "scientific community" and other groups, as they claim to idolize the great scientific thinkers while rejecting the spirit of inquiry that brought them their success.'''What inquiry is that? The 15 supposed "loopholes" in Darwinian evolution? What about the religious bias behind the inquiry? How can you criticize scientists for refusing to engage crackpot self-appointed 'skeptics' when its clear they have a less than honest agenda?'''

The hearsay society attitude also compares unfavorably with [[Voltaire]]'s famous maxim "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the [[death]] your right to say it." Those who insist on censoring obvious truths on the pretext that no one can be found to have said them before are effectively saying the exact opposite: "I do not necessarily dispute what you say, but I am nevertheless going to try to stop you from saying it."

The hearsay society attitude also compares unfavorably with [[Voltaire]]'s famous maxim "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the [[death]] your right to say it."'''Except that this isn't an issue about abstract opinion. This is an issue of academic integrity and the verification of claimed knowledge. Who 'disagrees' with fact? Oh right, you guys. Derp.''' Those who insist on censoring obvious truths on the pretext that no one can be found to have said them before are effectively saying the exact opposite: "I do not necessarily dispute what you say, but I am nevertheless going to try to stop you from saying it." '''If it were self-evidenct, it wouldn't need to be sourced. This has nothing to do with censorship of opinion, you idiot.'''

==Comparison with Declaration of Independence==

==Comparison with Declaration of Independence==

One of the founding documents of the [[United States of America]], the [[Declaration of Independence]], begins by asserting certain truths as "self-evident". The [[Founding Fathers]] who wrote it did not see the need to look for references or other parties who had made the assertions before, and that tone of self-reliance and confidence chimes throughout the rest of the Declaration, and indeed has informed the US's enterprising and pragmatic spirit in the centuries that followed.  

One of the founding documents of the [[United States of America]], the [[Declaration of Independence]], begins by asserting certain truths as "self-evident". The [[Founding Fathers]] who wrote it did not see the need to look for references or other parties who had made the assertions before, and that tone of self-reliance and confidence chimes throughout the rest of the Declaration, and indeed has informed the US's enterprising and pragmatic spirit in the centuries that followed.'''That has nothing to do with academic integrity. Derp.'''

This example shows how Wikipedia and the hearsay society are at odds with the approach taken by history's great men - including those with great practical achievements as well as thinkers. The hearsay society might even be considered "un-American".

This example shows how Wikipedia and the hearsay society are at odds with the approach taken by history's great men - including those with great practical achievements as well as thinkers. The hearsay society might even be considered "un-American".'''More like unbelievable, because it doesn't exist.'''

Conversely, [[socialist]] and other left- or [[liberal]]-leaning societies have been characterized by a deference to authority, even when those in authority are clearly mistaken or deliberately acting against the interests of the society in question. This deferential tendency is of a piece with the attitudes that drive the hearsay society - supposed authorities, whether scientific, political, social or trivial, are taken as arbiters of truth regardless of their real credentials, and even when individuals' own logic ought to guide them otherwise.  

Conversely, [[socialist]] and other left- or [[liberal]]-leaning societies have been characterized by a deference to authority, even when those in authority are clearly mistaken or deliberately acting against the interests of the society in question.'''I love how you don't source this statement. Please, continue making false claims. It's delicious.'''This deferential tendency is of a piece with the attitudes that drive the hearsay society - supposed authorities, whether scientific, political, social or trivial, are taken as arbiters of truth regardless of their real credentials, and even when individuals' own logic ought to guide them otherwise.'''No, scientists are careful not to commit the fallacy of appealing to authority. We judge statements based on veracity and consistent observations, not the source behind it.'''

==Biblical commentary==

==Biblical commentary==

And He said unto them, “But whom say ye that I am?” And [[Peter]] answered and said unto Him, “Thou art the [[Messiah|Christ]]."}}

And He said unto them, “But whom say ye that I am?” And [[Peter]] answered and said unto Him, “Thou art the [[Messiah|Christ]]."}}

There was a great deal of hearsay circulating about Jesus himself, much of it apparently unfounded speculation about his identity. Jesus warns his disciples to put what they have heard second-hand to one side, and instead make their  own interpretation of the evidence they have seen: not "who do men say" but "whom say ye". Disregarding the hearsay, [[Peter]] then finds that he can provide the correct answer - despite its surprising and challenging nature, and despite his own lack of scholarly education.

There was a great deal of hearsay circulating about Jesus himself, much of it apparently unfounded speculation about his identity. Jesus warns his disciples to put what they have heard second-hand to one side, and instead make their  own interpretation of the evidence they have seen: not "who do men say" but "whom say ye". Disregarding the hearsay, [[Peter]] then finds that he can provide the correct answer - despite its surprising and challenging nature, and despite his own lack of scholarly education. '''Nothing but irrelevant biblical claptrap.'''

[[Category:Wikipedia]]

[[Category:Wikipedia]]

[[Category:Epistemology]]

[[Category:Epistemology]]

[[Category:Censorship]]

[[Category:Censorship]]