0002 - Rushing to Conservative Misinformation and Aliens

More at https://dysevidentia.com but for now we will discuss dysevidentia while we figure out audio quality. Sqeaky has a rant where he describes people not valuing evidence. Then with Mako, they discuss Covid Vaccine Deaths and preposterous claims around them, Shell hitting peak oil, rush limbaugh dying, and touch on the fractal of wrong thinking that is Annunaki. Support us: Become a Patron - https://www.patreon.com/dysevidentia Nicehash Sponsor - https://www.nicehash.com/?refby=eda23ada-5de2-4374-8816-3631679dbf9e

n his rant Sqeaky shares how evidence relates to methods of inquiry and complains about people who don’t understand either.

Then Sqeaky and Mako jump straight into a few current topics. The 4 topics they are to discuss today:
  • The mixed truth of covid vaccine deaths;
  • Shell declares peak oil (for themselves);
  • rush limbaugh is dead;
  • And the Annunaki AKA sumerian Ancient Astronauts.
Please Consider Supporting Us

The Rant Full Text (1:27) - Evidence Supports Algorithms

There is no algorithm for truth, and I don’t mean to reference the insightful Tom Scott video. I will leave a link in the show notes, though

For those who don’t know an algorithm is just a series of steps to solve a specific problem. This comes up often in software because computers are good at blithely following a series of steps to get to some result. But we humans can use them too.

Some people learn of the scientific method and presume this algorithm is the only way to learn unknown things. This is a good method and highlights the importance of understanding how a single change impacts a result, but there are other “methods” in other disciplines.

Historians have a documentary method , geologists have methods for learning the age of things, Astronomers have ways to date stars and planets based on distance and brightness. These are just algorithms performed by humans.
These methods say how to decide whether to use or reject historical documents. How to determine the age of a fossil or rocks and why there is a different approach for each. How to measure the distance to an object trillions of miles or kilometers away without being fooled by the many illusions the universe or our tools put in our way.

These algorithms are only as good as the information they have access to. If you give them garbage you will get garbage, if you start with clean reliable facts and pristine samples the computers and experts following these steps will produce answers as accurate as anything else they do.

These methods are all ways to draw conclusions from evidence. They help in preventing a researcher from bias towards a conclusion then cherry picking evidence that only supports it. This can be hard even for experts.

Some people say that if a method or algorithm doesn’t always work it should never be used. Some people expect some algorithm to be correct even with bad data. Some people will say anything to shoot down a conflicting viewpoint.

No tool is useful in every situation, using these methods correctly is like any other tool, there is a time and a place for each. Many of the arguments against them are useless equivocations claiming that a thing is broken if it isn’t perfect. These are of course idiotic rebuttals.

Why do people persist in believing that information can come from nothing,  which is what would need to happen for an algorithm to produce good data from bad? What do people decry anything they don’t like? For at least some people this is likely dysevidentia, you wouldn't be listening if you weren't at least open to the idea that not all people can understand how to work with evidence.

The real way to get to truth and knowledge is to do whatever it takes to not be fooled, even by your own goals and desires. This is why experts have so different many methods, they have worked out the methods that function in their domains of expertise.

Then we get the raving hordes online. Recently, I have been arguing with trump supporters. Many claim to have evidence the election was stolen from trump, and none of them provide evidence when I ask for it.

They ask for evidence it wasn’t stolen and I provide the 60 or more court cases where trump’s lawyers chose not to present evidence. I suggest we consider the countless audit logs and oversight from observers provided by both parties. I point out that even republicans in charge of some contentious electoral districts say it was a clean election.

They attack mainstream sources like CNN or MSNBC, then I point out that I used alt-right sources and direct them to said sources and they mysteriously stop responding. When they see alex jones switch narratives exactly when I said he would or see that an alt-right stream presents the same facts, minus some key piece that allows their dishonest spin, most objecters are stopped completely. Those that aren’t stopped either can’t process evidence (dysevidentia) or won’t process evidence (liars).

They started this presuming all they needed to do was attack my “method”, and they presumed their method was mine but mirrored. They took in one or two sources that agreed with them and moved on. I actually research the things I argue about, because being correct is a very strong stance to argue from.

There are people so caught up in the act of shooting down sources, tracking finances to show bias, pointing political fingers, or otherwise scouring secondary effects for any imperfections they miss that all these methods are all about evidence. If I have a dozen sources that cross-corroborate I already know the facts, that one of my sources is biased doesn’t matter because I have already accounted for that. And of course don’t trust a source that is all by itself and biased.

Questioning sources is good and should be done often, but a bias doesn’t mean a thing is inaccurate if the other sources agree by different means.

First, get evidence, verify the quality of evidence, use evidence to make decisions, and be willing to change your mind when the evidence says you should. If you don’t, then you can and will make mistakes that might be more costly than looking foolish online, it could prevent you from becoming a supporter of a failed ideology.

HeadLines and Sources

Thank you for listening and checking the show notes. Consider supporting us by liking, subscribing, leaving a review, or becoming a patreon: https://www.patreon.com/dysevidentia .

★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

© 2021 Copyright BlackTopp Studios Inc