Finding truths is good, but without being handed down to posterity, truths will be lost into oblivion.
Topics
About: truth
About: humanity
The table of contents of this article
- Starting Context
- Target Context
- Orientation
- Main Body
- 1: Finding Truths Is Good, but Truths Without Being Handed Down Will Be Lost into Oblivion
- 2: The Disproportionality of Popularity Systems, Especially Search Engines
- 3: There Is a Potential Improvement for Search Engines, but . . .
- 4: What Are Meant by "Truth"?, by the Way
- 5: You Can Be a Benefactor of Humanity by Being a Conduit of Truths
Starting Context
- The reader knows the background of this site.
Target Context
- The reader will understand that he or she can be a benefactor of humanity by being a conduit of truths.
Orientation
There is an article on that what we are supposed to do is to maintain the unboundedly consistent hypotheses system.
There is an article on that to establish the unbounded consistency is the only way to near truths.
There is an article on the distinctions between the reality, observations, and interpretations of observations, and where relativity, ambiguity, or unpredictability could exist.
Main Body
Stage DirectionHere is Special-Student-7 in a room in an old rather isolated house surrounded by some mountains in Japan.
1: Finding Truths Is Good, but Truths Without Being Handed Down Will Be Lost into Oblivion
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Finding truths is good, but no truth shines by itself.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
That depends on what is meant by "shine".
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I mean that the truth is seen by some people.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Ah, I understand.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I think that any truth is valuable by itself even without being seen, but being valuable is not shining, in my expression.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Should a truth shine?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Yes, at least feebly, I say.
Look, I do not expect a more important truth to shine brighter; for example, I do not expect a science book full of truths to be read more than a vacuous manga book to be, and it is OK, but if the book is not read at all, the book will not be handed down to posterity, which is not OK.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
So, 'not shine at all' and 'shine extremely feebly' are critically different: however feebly it is, the truth could be handed down to posterity as far as the truth is shining.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
In fact, I think that the fact that no truth shines by itself is a firm proof that no fair God exists: if a fair God existed, It certainly would make any truth shine, at least feebly.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Are you sure that It is not making a truth shine feebly?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Well, I said "at least feebly", but I do not see why It can help but make a truth shine as bright as it deserves, and I know that many truths are not being made shine as bright as it deserves, so I am pretty sure that no fair God exists.
2: The Disproportionality of Popularity Systems, Especially Search Engines
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But the problem is that it is quite difficult for a truth to shine feebly on the Bias Planet, as that kind of popularity systems prevail there.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
What do you mean by "that kind of popularity systems"?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
For example, typical (or probably all the) search engines, which JUST (at least mostly) present more popular items in higher precedence.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
You should elaborate what the matter is with it.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Let us suppose that there are some items of deserved-popularities of 13%, 12%, 11%, 10%, 9%, 8%, 7%, 6%, 5%, 4%, 3%, 2%, 1%, 0.5%, . . ., listed in that order in a search result.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
What is "deserved-popularity"?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
If all the items were given even opportunities, a 1% deserved-popularity item would take the 1% popularity.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Ah, the point is that the realized-popularity is so, not purely because of the deserved-popularity, but very significantly because of the amount of the given opportunities.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
The top 13% deserved-popularity item most probably will not take just the 13% popularity, but a disproportionally much higher popularity, for example 60% popularity.
On the other hand, the 1% deserved-popularity item will not take the 1% popularity, but an almost 0 popularity, especially because it is not on the 1st result page.
In that kind of system, it is quite difficult for a 1% deserved-popularity item to shine even feebly.
Look, we are really OK that we do not take the most popularity; we really do not aim much popularity at all; we are just hoping to reach the 1% selected persons, but it is quite difficult in that kind of system.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
In fact, search engines do not (whether cannot or will not) assess the deserved popularities based on the contents, but are judging what are popular based on being already popular, which are popular just because the search engines have determined to be popular.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
"More important items should have more back links." is really bull shit: it is only after all the items are given even opportunities that such a correlation ensues, while the search engine itself prevents such opportunities.
So, "organic back-links-building" is really absurd, because a no-back-link-right-now item is not seen by anyone, and the item not seen by anyone cannot get back links "organically".
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
I guess that most (or at least many) people have notices the situation, but enigmatically to me, such "bull shit" keeps prevailing on the Bias Planet . . .
3: There Is a Potential Improvement for Search Engines, but . . .
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Obviously, just listing items in the deserved-popularities order does not realize the proportionate attentions.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Even if the deserved-popularities are supposed to have been justly assessed.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Yes, let them be supposed so, for now.
The only solution seems to be to list the 1% deserved-popularity item at the top for the 1% persons.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
That is to customize search results for each person, which seems to be already being somehow attempted by some search engines.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
The problem is that those search engines thrust what they decide each person should want, not offer what each person really wants.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
In fact, they should let each person explicitly specify what he or she wants, not surreptitiously gather data and do second-guessing.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
They refuse to do so, because they are trying to trick each person into buying what they want to sell (more specifically, what advertisers who paid to them want to sell), not trying to offer what each person really wants.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
What we are saying is that there should be some detailed search options each person can explicitly choose.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Options like "I want truths instead of fake news.", "I want rigidly logical explanations instead of intuitive not-exact explanations.", "I don't want advertisements.", etc. .
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
The last option is what major search engines will refuse to offer.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I guess so.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
And would many people choose the "I want fake news." option?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Why not? They would not be able to see what they wanted unless they had chosen the option.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
An issue is whether search engines can discern fake news, intuitive not-exact explanations, etc., technically speaking.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
If they cannot, a way is to let authors put in meta tags.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Would many authors put in the "this is fake-oriented" meta tag?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Why not? Unless they do so, they would not be able to reach the potential readers.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Well, I see a point, but the people who love fake news love fake news because they do not admit that the fake news are fake.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
The option does not need to be expressed exactly "I want fake news.", but be an euphemism.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
"an euphemism" . . . like . . .
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I do not know; I am not so an euphemist. Well, perhaps "I believe that it is sometimes necessary to fib a little"?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
"sometimes" or "as frequently as one can possibly get away with it"?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
You know, it is an euphemism.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
"a little"?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
'a lot', in other words.
Anyway, I am really OK that fake news are presented to fake news lovers, but please not present fake news to me or some other non-'fake news lovers', just because fake news are popular.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Is there any tiny hope that a search engine will implement such options?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Not from major search engines that target majority, but I wonder why a conscientious minor search engine cannot appear.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
It will have to be minor . . .
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I think that it will be inevitably minor.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
It is important that such a minor search engine is known to some selected persons who should know it.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Certainly, that is an issue: as the 1% deserved-popularity item is not seen by the 1% people, the 1% deserved-popularity search engine is not known to the 1% people. In fact, a promising minor search engine may exist, although we do not know it.
4: What Are Meant by "Truth"?, by the Way
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Many Biasians seem not to even believe that there is a distinction between truths and non-truths, nowadays.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Ah, "post-truth" . . .. I wonder whether they are so ignorant to not understand the distinction or they are so rotten to not admit the distinction as they understand the distinction.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Well, they are certainly ignorant to not understand the distinction, but they persist to keep being ignorant because they are so rotten to want to not admit the distinction. They want to not admit the distinction, because they want to claim whatever they want to claim, because if there was no non-truth, whatever blatant lies they claimed would not be lies.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
So, they adamantly refuse to be enlightened . . .
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I wonder whether they cannot be forced to be enlightened by clearly showing how they are wrong. I mean, can someone persist to claim that the Bias Planet is a flat plane after being clearly shown that that is not the case?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
The knowledge had taken much time to be spread while being a flat plane is not particularly so convenient for many people. On the other hand, nonexistence of the distinction is so convenient for many people to be easily given up.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Anyway, how they are wrong is that they do not distinguish the reality, observations, and interpretations of observations.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Certainly.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
A typical case of fallacy is that a president of a country claims that more people came to his or her inaugural address than to his or her predecessor's, while that is not really the case.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
And he or she insists that his or her claim is an "alternative fact", because more people were really seen to have come, from his or her perspective?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
It is really childish, but nevertheless very prevalent fallacy: it is just that "More people were seen to have come, from his or her perspective." may be a fact, but "More people came." is not any fact.
They claim like "As an object is seen in different ways in different perspectives, there are alternative facts.", but no!, 'The object is seen as a triangle in a perspective.' and 'The object is seen as a circle in another perspective.' are no alternative facts but 2 distinctly different facts.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
They sloppily state like "The object is a triangle." or "The object is a circle." and claim that they are alternative facts, but no, they are not facts at all, although 'The object is seen as a triangle in a perspective.' and 'The object is seen as a circle in another perspective.' are facts.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Some people may claim that a truth has ceased to be a truth as some conditions have changed.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
They think so because they think sloppily. The real truth in that case is really conditional like "If A then B." while they think that the truth is "B"; as "A" has ceased to hold, "B" has ceased to be true, but "If A then B." has not ceased to be true at all; "B" has never been really a truth. . . . If someone does not understand that, he or she should learn logic.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
A similar fallacy is "A truth does not exist just because humans do not (or cannot) know it.".
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
That fallacy is ludicrous, but seems to have been traditionally very popular on the Bias Planet.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
For them, an electron in a black hole does not exist just because humans cannot know the existence. . . . How selfish someone can be!
A claim like "As humans cannot know the position of an electron, the electron is in a state that the position is not determined." is in the same category. Actually, the electron is not in that state, but humans are in the state that they do no know the position.
Such a claim inevitably leads to a conclusion like "As humans cannot know whether a cat is alive or dead, the cat is a zombie."
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Some people may claim "Whether a truth exists or not, as humans cannot know it for sure, you cannot claim that something is a truth.".
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
So, are they allowed to claim blatant lies?
1st, even if some things are not known to be absolutely true, blatant lies are known to be absolutely untrue.
2nd, while we have not reached an absolute truth (and we may not be able to reach an absolute truth), we can endlessly approach the absolute truth, which is what we are supposed to do.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Some people are like "As nothing is proved to be absolutely true, all the claims are equal.". . . . No. Any inconsistent claim is absolutely untrue; a seems-to-be-consistent-for-now claim may eventually turn out to be untrue, but it is an approach to a truth.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
The latter is a hypothesis, and the only type of sincere approaches is to maintain an unboundedly consistent hypothesis.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Being unbounded is the point.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
So, certainly, what we call "truth" may turn out be a non-truth, but "truth" is at least an unboundedly consistent hypothesis.
If somebody says that that use of "truth" is sloppy, well, I agree actually, but there is no word for 'unboundedly consistent hypothesis' on the Bias Planet, and "truth" is actually almost always an unboundedly consistent hypothesis, so, we are compromising to grudgingly use "truth" that way.
5: You Can Be a Benefactor of Humanity by Being a Conduit of Truths
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
As there is no fair God that makes truths shine and search engines are not much helpful in making truths shine, it is only you that can make a truth shine.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
How?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
You can spread a truth by word of mouth.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Does it have to be offline?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
No. I do not mean literally "by mouth", but mean that you do it individually. So, writing about the truth in your blog, a Q & A site, or something is a kind of "word of mouth".
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
It is important not to assume that the truth will be automatically spread by an authority, like God or a search engine.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
The humanity is depending on you to spread the truth.
