Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Brian's avatar

John Rawls wrote that truth is the first virtue of any system of thought. If you have no truth (in an objective and verifiable sense) your system of thought is fundamentally flawed. If that system of thought is responsible for all of your social institutions eg government, education, courts, economic activity then all of these are themselves contaminated and should be rejected. I fear with the likes of Trump, Farage and those others who are prepared to bend the rules of truth and with a disparate media unwilling or unable to challenge those who treat truth as a malleable commodity we are undermining something foundational in the way we structure our societies. In Russia truth is what the state says it is and any deviation is sanctioned by force. In the USA there simply is no agreed or workable concept of truth any more and so state enforcement is not necessary. No viewpoint can gain enough traction to influence affairs even if objectively true. The effects are the same total breakdown of societal institutions to the detriment of its people and those with whom that country interacts.

Expand full comment
Kukuh Noertjojo's avatar

Adam, I am very glad that you write this topic and giving us an important topic to contemplate.

You were asking "If fictitious content can make non-fiction more interesting, more readable, and more successful, then are many writers optimising for the wrong thing by pursuing what is true? " I can only say that I appreciate very much that you didnot follow this in your book. What I have read so far from your book is that the not so easy to understand topic you wrote read to me like in a Michael Connelly novel. It is engaging, interesting and it is easy enough for people like me to understand without sacrificing the truth as you want us to understand.

You wrote that "Yes, everyone gets it wrong sometimes, but there is a difference between being occasionally wrong in a minor way and regularly wrong in a major way". it definitely is especially if one deliberately wrong in any way. I think as a scientist this is the largest responsibility we have to society.

You also wrote that "We call it technical debt (this is a good word to remember). Get a quick benefit now, pay the price later". To me this is mortgaging the future generation for this generation selfish benefit or for their thirst of power.

Thank you Adam; I appreciate very much that a mathematician is also concern in this situation and have the willingness to explore it!

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts