["The World's Constitution" - your review?]

5 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Wikipedia has a pretty effective if fallible way of doing it, if you state something as fact give a link to the evidence. 

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.

["The World's Constitution" - your review?]

3 hours ago, Anonapersona said:

Creationists are trying to peddle their religious views as science

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.

["The World's Constitution" - your review?]

1 hour ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

More airtime? Really?

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.

["The World's Constitution" - your review?]

14 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

I am not a scientist but as I understand it the scientific method deals with the issue pretty sensibly in terms of science advancement.  In science, opinion doesn't matter, its what you can demonstrate to be correct that matters. It also rules out the influence of authority figures.  Put simply, if a suggested "theory" (theory being used in the strictly scientific sense, not the everyday sense) fails to demonstrate repeatable identical results, it is wrong and can be discounted.

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.

 

["The World's Constitution" - your review?]

10 hours ago, coprolite said:

Or is the scope of your proposal limited to "political programmes"

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?

["The World's Constitution" - your review?]

1 hour ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

However much room there is in the educational timetable, there's no room in it for intelligent design, or for that matter, for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, although interestingly there is equal evidence for both of them. 

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 World's Constitution" - your review?]

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

Who is the gatekeeper and what checks are there on their power? 

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.

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

A historian, lets call him David, doesn't believe in the holocaust and wants a series on the bbc to explain this to everyone. 

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.

 

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

The Christian parents association demands that Intelligent design is taught in biology and in response the school wags request that FSM is also included. 

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.

 

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

Steve of Essex thinks there are too many people of asian origin in the UK and starts a "send them back" campaign on twitter. 

Same as above.

 

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

I think that your faith in people to select and agree with "correct" opinions is touching but misplaced.

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?

["The World's Constitution" - your review?]

2 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I don't think you've mis-identified a problem. I pretty much share your intuition that it's harmful for a wealthy people to have disproportionate influence on some media. 

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?

["The World's Constitution" - your review?]

On 31/12/2021 at 15:30, coprolite said:

You've implied a causality from a correlation between power and "prominent voice" and treated that as axiomatic. 

Maybe it’s at least partly true that power can derive from a "prominent voice" as it was in the bolsheveik revolution, to take one high profile example. 

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?

["The World's Constitution" - your review?]

4 hours ago, coprolite said:

Assuming that it is possible and desirable to have such a policy, what do you mean by each of "views", "decide" and "heard"?

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?

["The World's Constitution" - your review?]

13 hours ago, coprolite said:

I don't think you've proposed a solution. I don't think you've got close. 

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

["The World's Constitution" - your review?]

Just now, welshbairn said:

I know if something is well written for a start.

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?

["The World's Constitution" - your review?]

1 minute ago, coprolite said:

This is a good example of why not all opinions should be listened to. 

Absolutely incoherent drivel. 

You wrote that constitution thingy didn't you? 

How do you decide what opinons should be heard?

["The World's Constitution" - your review?]

12 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Quality matters, I'm not going to pay to read random unedited opinions, I want well written pieces by people who know the the subject well. 

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?

["The World's Constitution" - your review?]

On 27/12/2021 at 15:49, welshbairn said:

If media companies are forced to publish every opinion with equal weight, how do we filter out the boring and moronic ones to have time to read the well thought out and interesting ones? 

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?

["The World's Constitution" - your review?]

18 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Hypocrisy, selfishness and greed are hard-wired into the human brain.

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.

18 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Racist views included?

Conspiracy Theory lies included?

Yes of course. How can those things be counteracted if they are not heard?

["The World's Constitution" - your review?]

20 hours ago, Scott Steiner said:

However, I can't help but think that it ignores that the world is made up of different peoples with various evolutionary stories, meaning they don't think or act the same, hence the wildly diverging cultures we have across the globe.

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?

20 hours ago, Scott Steiner said:

Any attempt to have them all operating under the same rules is doomed to failure IMO.

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?

20 hours ago, Scott Steiner said:

What's the aim of the website anyway?

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"

["The World's Constitution" - your review?]

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.

[Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.]

Never if they can get away with it

24 minutes ago, Soapy FFC said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36414761

Given the continuing increases to domestic energy bills, I wonder when Johnson, Gove and the other Brexit supporting ministers are going to cut VAT on fuel bills to help out the poor consumer?