Hearsay society

2012-08-20T03:53:12Z

Tobouycha: Rewrote the article to read correctly. Umad, Conservapedia? :3

[[Image:Jdfu6r7.JPG|right|thumb|''Sapere aude!'' The Enlightenment thinker [[John Locke]]. ''''DARE to shut yourself off from the world of facts, reason and skepticism! You dishonest right-wing crackpots co-opted his motto to justify your ignorance. You don't REALLY want to seek the truth, you want to HIDE from it. How can you claim to seek the truth if you prioritize your shallow beliefs ahead of the scientific method?''']]
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 how do you introduce a statement if NO ONE said it already?'''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. 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.'''Interestingly, this article doesn't source its own outlandish statements, in some hilarious ironic act of defiance against the non-existent "liberal media".'''

'''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. The audience would know it's not a factual account. 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==
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]],'''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,'''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. You don't understand citation, do you? How do you expect to introduce a statement that wasn't previously stated? Then NO ONE would be able to speak their mind at all! This is the fallacy of reduction to absurdity. The argument's premise is taken to a ridiculous conclusion, and then 'negated'. You also constructed a straw-man. You basically demonstrated the stupidity of the argument you yourself contrived.''' 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. For one, it provides knowledge for engineers to import into various applications.''' 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===
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. Completely wrong.''' 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 and readability to a general audience.'''

==Comparison with the Enlightenment==
[[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.'''And this is what scientists do, you moron. The scientific method is a real-world application of critical thinking. The very principle is embodied in it.''' 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? You cannot seriously comment on the scientific state of affairs if you willfully ignore (and in some cases vehemently oppose) solidly established principles like evolution and human-caused global warming. Your corporate astro-turf falls flat on its face. Try again. Derp.'''

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==
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. This reads like an emotional appeal to history to draw in your audience because you can't rely on facts which contradict your pathetic world-view. 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". '''More like unbelievable, because it doesn't exist, and never will.'''

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 hypocritical, 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==
===Pharisees===
The similarities between the hearsay society and the [[Pharisee]]s who opposed [[Jesus]] are marked. As a group, the Pharisees were characterised by a petty and inflexible adherence to rules whose observance had long been divorced from their original purpose; '''Yeah, that describes the userbase at Conservapedia quite nicely.''' and by a scandalized reaction to anyone who dared to think for himself rather than accept the views of authorities who they saw as beyond question. '''This describes the staff at Conservapedia quite well, actually. Why is it, that the irony is always lost on the ignorant? I suppose it's because they're too stupid or close-minded to realize that the irony was lost on them. But please, continue contradicting yourself and justifying your close-minded world-view towards gays, Jews, Muslims, brown people and whoever else you feel like persecuting today. :)'''

The hearsay society is perhaps the most common modern manifestation of both of these Pharisee-like tendencies. Where the Pharisees ignored or tried to suppress truths because they came from Jesus (a carpenter by trade)'''When rational people attempt to point out that Jesus never "said this" or "said that", people like Schlafly get mad. Jesus never said a word on homosexuality. That was the Old Testament, which is supplanted by the New Testament. Interestingly, many bigoted Christians nevertheless continue to draw their inspiration from the old Testament although it had been abrogated by Jesus himself. What's even funnier is that, historically, the perceived opposition to homosexuality wasn't on a moral basis at all. Later Christians in Europe interpreted those passages to be grounded on a moral basis.''' rather than the priests of the temple, the hearsay society similarly censors or refuses to acknowledge anything not recycled from a limited pool of approved sources. '''Hmm. Let's draw a comparison. Conservative Republican Christian. Check. Bible is his claimed primary source of knowledge. Check. Refuses to accept evolution because it contradicts theh Bible. Check. Opposes LGBT rights because it says so in the Bible (which it doesn't). Check. Does this sound familiar to you, Schlafly? Derp.''' Where the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus for spurious violations of the [[Sabbath]],'''Schalfly tries to ban users for disagreeing with his self-proclaimed "Holy Commandments". Thou shall not contradict the word of thy God, Schalfly! Derp.''' so the hearsay society censors through recourse to rules on citation, regardless of how badly they might be misapplied, or how irrelevant they might be to the case in question.'''And yet you include "citations" from nameless third-rate bloggers on Twitter. You even "cite" a supposed DINNER CONVERSATION that Schalfly supposedly had with some Supreme Court judge. Of course. This doesn't count as misapplying citation. You're free to break all the rules you contrive because you're immune to criticism, because YOU ARE SIMPLY CORRECT. OF COURSE. Carry on, then.'''

===Jesus's teaching===
[[Jesus]] also touched more directly on the topic of hearsay when speaking to his disciples. [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] chapter 8 contains the following (verses 27-29):
{{cquote|And Jesus went out with His disciples into the towns of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He asked His disciples, saying unto them, “Who do men say that I am?”'''This has nothing to do with hearsay. Derp. The Bible is simply a glossy marketing pamphlet. Historical details will be exaggerated, understated, omitted and reinterpreted to illustrate the idea that Jesus was some powerful God. It's not an accurate historical account of anything. Sure, a historical Jesus may have existed. But there's no proof of his divinity. Derp.'''

And they answered, “[[John the Baptist]]; but some say [[Elijah]], and others, one of the prophets.”

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. '''Irrelevant Biblical claptrap.''' 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:Epistemology]]
[[Category:Censorship]]

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Hearsay society