TheNavigateur

This heavily slants the content in favour those with power (e.g. ownership), since they control publishing etc. to a much greater extent than those with less power (Wikipedia doesn't just accept a link to any web content, it requires it to be a published article or book by a "reputable" publishing entity), contributing to the self-increasing power by propaganda vicious cycle that currently exists.

That's why I'm trying to understand from Salt n Vinegar how "science" can be in the rules to filter out what people hear, because then everybody will label their ideas as "science" and then in the worst case the most powerful get to decide what that is and isn't, and in the best case it's majoritarian view, which renders common misconceptions unsolvable.

I happen to think equal voice would give religious viewpoints less airtime, not more. I happen to believe that religion is (and always has been) an arm of propaganda by the powerful, when they have chosen to exert it. Even if it wasn't, religion is heirarchical indoctrination in of itself, which, at least theoretically, doesn't exist at all with equal voice. And so I think either way religious fervour would decrease in media and debates, not increase. I'd love to hear how (presuming you do) think I'm wrong, and how you think each step would play out instead. I still have a concern about by what authority you would have "scientific" vs "unscientific" information be determined? Is it majoritarian and if so how would you solve common misconceptions? I suppose this question is procedural, since it seems we agree on the underlying information itself in the examples you have mentioned so far.

Yes of course science can demonstrate validity which is one of the reasons I have absolutely no fear of people believing in creationism (or anything logically unsustainable) when they have understood darwinism (or anything given as the alternative that is demonstrable, logically or empirically) - as darwinism, for example, when understood, is self-evident in contrast to its alternatives. I happen to believe that creationists are the ones who have had opposing views blocked out and branded as "taboo", not the other way around. But since you want to block out "unscientific" opinions, would you take the majoritarian view on what that means? If so, then aren't we back to being unable to solve common misconceptions? My understanding of science is that it never demands not to be challenged, but rather that challenging what we understand (including disproving incorrect hypotheses) is the very essence of science. I don't know if I'm missing your point in saying this though.

Good question. The intended scope is those areas of the media currently used for political propaganda by those with greater power. Yes it's media that presents "political opinion" (opinions which affect the laws that are passed), although I'm not particularly offended if it extends further - would you be? And if so, why? And I'm still curious by what metrics you believe that equal voice, regardless of scope, would be worse than what currently exists?

While I agree that intelligent design and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are incorrect (and I have no fear of them catching on and convincing anyone in the face of darwinism, which I find would be far more convincing to anyone), minority opinion isn't always incorrect. How would you give a chance for such minority opinion to convince the majority if minority opinion is always blocked out from being heard by anyone, let alone the majority? Or do you not believe in such a thing as common misconception? Or if you do, do you not believe it to be a problem that requires any kind of remedy whatsoever?

The idea is that a randomized process is carried out to select participants in each political programme. The programme maker must accept those participants from a public software application, on which the programme maker will have registered their upcoming programme for members of the public to apply to be heard on. The rule for that public software application is that the algorithm must be inspectable by the public, including the record of the algorithm against the candidate "IDs" so they can verify it was done correctly. David would apply to be selected on the programme of his choice, and if selected he would be able to present his case. Bearing in mind that holocaust believers vastly outnumber holocaust deniers, his opinion would appear very rarely in comparison to those who believe the holocaust happened. Given that these are currently fringe opinions when it comes to biology, then, the same as above, they would appear relatively rarely as a case being made. Same as above. Interesting take. I base my faith in people to select and agree with "correct" opinions on the same basis as proof itself: that correct opinions can be substantiated (i.e. be given compelling reasoning behind them) and are hence more convincing. In fact I believe that equal voice facilitates this maximally, by placing each person's opinion on the same "starting line" (like a 100m race) to see who is the genuine winner. What do you think would happen instead? And again, are you able to explain why and by what metrics you think this would be worse than what currently exists?

Can you explain, then, why and how you think equal voice is worse than the current system of self-increasing power by propaganda (presuming that you agree that that is what is currently happening)? I have heard concerns about fringe nonsense getting the same weightage as insighful answers, but I don't think that's how it would play out - I think fringe opinions would be heard rarely, but heard nonetheless, whereas those fringe opinions that happen to be correct but contravene the "conventional wisdom" would have the best chance of rising to majority consciousness, eventually. That is my opinion. What is yours? How do you see it playing out? And by what metrics would you quantify this as worse than what currently exists?

Is that correlation not axiomatic without any rules to counteract it? Do you not think that even in a capitalistic system, those with the most power (ownership) can purchase their way to being heard the most? Do you not think that this leads to actions (e.g. people voting for the propagandists' favourite political candidates, etc.) that furthers the propagandists' interests, which increases their power even more to do even more of the same, in a vicious cycle? Even if you think this is supremely complicated to solve, can you not give one example step, that is logically sustainable, that would address this? Or at least whatever you think you'd like to be changed based on what you think the problem is in those cases, and if you'd like to share what you think the problem is if you think I've misidentified what it is? Do you not think it's worth making at least a start on formulating that "solution" if you think an alternative approach is better?

Views = opinions. Decide = enact, in any sense you might think of. Heard = read or heard. The established pattern is those with the most power (regardless of how they got that power) get the most prominent voice, which increases their power further by garnering support for actions that further their interests. If this is acceptable to you, why? If not, what do you think should be done about it?

What is your best-approach, on deciding what views should be heard?

That's not really what I'm asking though. Nonsense can be very elegantly written. Groundbreakingly genius ideas can be badly written. The constitution only states that opinions should be given equal airing. It doesn't prevent proof readers from sending grammatical and semantic editing back to the original author for approval, for example. My question is, essentially, how can an opinion prove its quality outside the context of a debate against those who disagree with it?

How do you decide what opinons should be heard?

How do you find this? Quality exists in debate that propagates compelling reasoning to convince those who disagree, also known as proof. Opinion itself cannot serve as proof otherwise. If somebody out there has a counter-argument that can eventually disprove the "conventional wisdom", how will that happen if that voice is filtered out? Can you explain how the quality you have described can even be convincingly shown to exist?

If media companies are not forced to publish every opinion with equal weight, how do we know what they are publishing is not propaganda designed to further their owners' interests? I have never found an opinion boring, but if there is a case for it, it is surely when the same opinion is repeated, which is the case with propaganda? Or if there is a representative body "filtering" the opinions, simply majority opinion repeated? Surely a representative cross section of all opinion is the least boring option? As for moronic, I think that becomes clear in the course of debate between those with different opinions, whereas often "moronic" ideas can otherwise fester as conventional wisdom due to repetition whether it's in the case of owner propaganda or majoritarian filtering... don't you think?

1. I think all those 3 things mean the same thing. 2. I think they exist only when we don't consider others - but our reaction of discomfort when we see an innocent person suffer is also completely natural. Yes of course. How can those things be counteracted if they are not heard?

Are varied cultures not a result of the varied exertion of dictatorial geopolitical power, as opposed to permanent differences that reflect the same actions that would take place if they were in a democratic setting instead? Would you be comfortable elaborating on how you define "failure" in this scenario? Do you see the brutal wars throughout history until the present day, mostly hurting the innocent, as failure too? Do you not see the separated decision making as any contributing factor in escalating these wars? The answer it would seem to me appears in the preamble? "to seek justice, to maximize the happiness for all and to minimize the suffering for any"

Hi! I'm just wondering about your opnions on the "world's constitution" as published here: https://theworldsconstitution.com What would you change? Do you think it's a good idea overall? Etc.

Never if they can get away with it