Thank you PCG for engaging with this post and taking the time to reply with thoughtful arguments. But I disagree (and very strongly so) with what seems to be one of your premises: that the public (aka the little people or the unwashed masses) is too stupid and must be protected by some elites that know better. I very much disagree.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 3:31 PM PGC <[email protected]> wrote: > > Giulio's argument highlights the tension between the trade-off of noise for > signal in public platforms like Joe Rogan's podcast, which undeniably wields > significant reach and influence. While I agree that public access to figures > like Roger Penrose and other scientists with unconventional but valuable > ideas is crucial, I think the broader implications of the platform’s framing, > curation, and biases need to be examined critically. > > Joe Rogan's platform frequently reinforces reductionist and popular trends, > where complex issues are stripped of context and presented as binary > conflicts. This reductionism risks doing more harm than good, particularly > when it allows misinformation or opportunistic ideologies to dominate public > attention. The presence of noise might be an acceptable price for signal if > the audience were uniformly equipped to discern the difference. However, such > platforms often exploit cognitive biases—like confirmation bias and emotional > appeal—leading to a conflation of the noise with the signal. When voices > espousing bad faith arguments are amplified (without sufficient critique or > framing) the consequences can skew public discourse toward division and > obfuscation, as has been the case. > > Your defense of Rogan as a counterbalance to "thought policing" and "cancel > culture" raises valid concerns about freedom of expression. However, equating > critique of harmful ideas with suppression is a dangerous oversimplification. > Platforms like Rogan's must recognize their curatorial responsibility: the > act of amplifying voices and framing their ideas is not neutral. Without > providing the tools for audiences to evaluate content critically, the "noise" > becomes more than a harmless cost; it becomes a mechanism for reinforcing > pseudoscience, disinformation, and divisive ideologies. > > Take Penrose as an example. His notable contributions to physics, for which > he earned a Nobel Prize, do not make his ideas on Gödel’s theorem and > Mechanism infallible. His Gödelian critique against computationalism > misinterprets Gödel’s theorem, which highlights epistemic limits for possible > machines and humans alike, rather than proving humans transcend mechanistic > processes. While there’s some indication Penrose has reconsidered the > validity of this argument, assuming correctness on the basis of accolades is > unscientific. Science demands critical engagement with arguments, not > deference to authority or committee decisions. > > This brings us to the broader problem: the value of figures like Penrose and > Goertzel is undermined when presented without proper framing. Public > discourse shaped by popular platforms needs rigor and context to avoid > reducing valuable ideas to fodder for opportunistic or ideologically > motivated narratives. While I understand the appeal of exposure through a > platform like Rogan’s, the ethical weight of curation cannot be ignored. > Popularity does not equate to merit, nor does it justify giving any voice a > platform without scrutiny. > > While I appreciate the importance of platforms for diverse voices, the > balance between noise and signal must be more carefully managed than Joe > sitting there and asking his minion for context by googling some issue, > reading the first responses, going on reddit/twitter and proclaiming > "true/false". Rogan conflates online opinion snapshots on context eliminating > platforms with truth, as evidenced by his recent statements regarding the X > community vetting ideas with the help of a couple of specialists posting "the > truth, so everybody knows, which is why X is so great". How scientific is > that? Platforms like Rogan’s could serve as powerful venues for public > education and discourse, but only if they accept their responsibility to > uphold intellectual rigor and ethical framing. Without this, the signal risks > being drowned out by the very noise it claims to correct. Instead of > amplifying popular reductionisms, public platforms must prioritize fostering > informed, critical engagement, elevating not just voices, but the discourse > itself. > > Popular internet is a context free zone, almost by discursive necessity: how > else would "copium" taste so good to so many? > > > On Thursday, December 5, 2024 at 2:34:43 PM UTC+1 John Clark wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 12:25 AM Giulio Prisco <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> > So in Joe Rogan's show (like everywhere) there's some noise besides the >>> > signal. Terrence Howard is noise. >> >> >> But Terrence Howard is VERY predictable noise, but Rogan invited him on his >> show anyway. It's one thing to have opinions about things that are on the >> very frontier of knowledge that only a minority of scientists in the physics >> community have, such as Roger Penrose, and somebody insisting that 1×1 = 2 >> and believing that the square root of 2 is nonsense. But at least Howard's >> idiocies will not kill anybody, but the anti-vaccine lunatics that Rogan >> invited on his program, when 4000 Americans were dying of COVID in a single >> day (911 only killed 2977) was irresponsible because that DID kill people. >> Rogan says he wants "a debate on vaccine science" but science had that >> debate 200 years ago and as far as science is concerned the controversy is >> over, vaccines work, and during the last 200 years vaccines have saved >> hundreds of millions if not billions of lives. >> >> And the fact that Joe Rogan believes that the perfect man to be president is >> a convicted felon and traitor who instigated a coup d'état in an attempt to >> become dictator, is a data point refuting the proposition that Mr. Rogan is >> a font of wisdom. However there is reason to believe that Mr. Rogan did well >> at his former job, giving color commentary during televised wrestling >> matches. >> >> John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis >> twm >>> >>> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ed92fa9f-abf8-46e3-a85d-778679d36eb2n%40googlegroups.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAKTCJycHbfF4m9aguu8pKokNgtEGoH1ib5Y9BD9iVBKiGmviBQ%40mail.gmail.com.
