Why fake-news are hard to deny?
The problems with fake news are quite simple. The main question is "who is right". And in this situation, we would need the facts, what is supporting us. But the main thing is that what if the opponent appeals in emotions? In the case, where against each other are research, what is made by using the empiric methodology, where is used the accepted methods and equipment, and the so-called self-experienced person, those things might make problematic to deny the person, who has the "experienced background".
Or those persons might have strong religious convictions, and other opinions are hurting that sensitive person. Those things are causing problems if we want to deny fake information. And one of the best ways is to use personal loss like ending the long-term relationship for keeping the opponent kindly, and of course, good rhetorics is helping the thing, that the audience reacts with the right way.
Then we must realize that criticism is not a negative thing. Why critics have so negative involving? When we are critically observing research, we must dare to ask, has some people seen all evidence? If we would want to deny some research, we must find the reason for that in the research report. Other things like leadership, personal property, and color of the skirt are meanless.
The error must be found from the words, what that person has put in that report. Has that person use many sources for collecting data, and does that person have access to the most modern equipment, what science has created, and then we must realize that we are not experts in everything in the world.
We are all humans, who are making mistakes. They are not a bad thing at all. But mistakes can become bad things if we don't confess and fix them. We must have the force and dare to look at the mirror and say, that we are human beings. Errors show that we are making our job ourselves. And we all have different interests. Some people are interested in medicine, other in history, and third is interested in technology like rockets or automobiles.
This means that we are facing very big paradoxes when we are talking about the engines. The thing is that nuclear-powered aircraft would not increase the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It can cause radioactive pollution and cause cancer in large areas and change those areas inhabitable for a long time, but it would not raise the level of carbon dioxide.
When somebody is using the images, where is some kind of curves, the other person can just say, that "I felt that thing myself". This is one version of the pseudoscientific thing. The so-called person "self-experienced" is causing empathy. The thing is that kind of thing is really good arguments, and the problem with fake news is that it is ambitious. And they offer simple answers to complicated problems. One of the best answer, what fake news is giving is "just let them be". We cannot make any changes to the world alone, and that's why we must just follow the main flow. Why we should change anything because we are not on Earth when something happens.
In this case, I will use the environment and climate change as an example. I know that somebody expected anything else. There are people, who are denying this thing. So they can go to the jungle, and interview some villains, who are repeating the word "yes, yes". Then they would tell how positive things the rising temperature is to those people, who are living in the houses, what is on the top of pylons. They can say, that they are happy now because they can fish straight from their houses, and when the children would go to school by using rubber boats. We want to believe that thing. Those people have own experience, how positive thing is the rising temperature.
This makes them hard to deny. The negative context is causing interest, and if we have some kind of opinion about the thing, that thing causes that our opinion would get support from the fake news. Let's think about the cases, where a person has just bought a new car. That car is really expensive. Would we want to listen to the things about environmental chancing in that case? Then we see the article, where is a story about the slowing of the increase in temperature. We would read that thing because it will support our opinion, that we cannot do anything ourselves, or we can change bad things to the next generations.
This is the thing in pseudoscience and fake news. If we would start to think about the black holes they are far away. There are billions or at least hundreds of lightyears to the nearest black hole, so let them be. We cannot affect those things. But when we are denying the environment change, we can make two things, we can deny the research.
That is one version, but the second version is that we can say, that the environment changes, but there is the national interest before it. And then the result is that the national interest would be boosted with the opinion, that the generations of the future are not here, and the political leaders would not get any votes from them. So why we must think about them. This means that the thing is one version of popularity.
The problems with fake news are quite simple. The main question is "who is right". And in this situation, we would need the facts, what is supporting us. But the main thing is that what if the opponent appeals in emotions? In the case, where against each other are research, what is made by using the empiric methodology, where is used the accepted methods and equipment, and the so-called self-experienced person, those things might make problematic to deny the person, who has the "experienced background".
Or those persons might have strong religious convictions, and other opinions are hurting that sensitive person. Those things are causing problems if we want to deny fake information. And one of the best ways is to use personal loss like ending the long-term relationship for keeping the opponent kindly, and of course, good rhetorics is helping the thing, that the audience reacts with the right way.
Then we must realize that criticism is not a negative thing. Why critics have so negative involving? When we are critically observing research, we must dare to ask, has some people seen all evidence? If we would want to deny some research, we must find the reason for that in the research report. Other things like leadership, personal property, and color of the skirt are meanless.
The error must be found from the words, what that person has put in that report. Has that person use many sources for collecting data, and does that person have access to the most modern equipment, what science has created, and then we must realize that we are not experts in everything in the world.
We are all humans, who are making mistakes. They are not a bad thing at all. But mistakes can become bad things if we don't confess and fix them. We must have the force and dare to look at the mirror and say, that we are human beings. Errors show that we are making our job ourselves. And we all have different interests. Some people are interested in medicine, other in history, and third is interested in technology like rockets or automobiles.
This means that we are facing very big paradoxes when we are talking about the engines. The thing is that nuclear-powered aircraft would not increase the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It can cause radioactive pollution and cause cancer in large areas and change those areas inhabitable for a long time, but it would not raise the level of carbon dioxide.
When somebody is using the images, where is some kind of curves, the other person can just say, that "I felt that thing myself". This is one version of the pseudoscientific thing. The so-called person "self-experienced" is causing empathy. The thing is that kind of thing is really good arguments, and the problem with fake news is that it is ambitious. And they offer simple answers to complicated problems. One of the best answer, what fake news is giving is "just let them be". We cannot make any changes to the world alone, and that's why we must just follow the main flow. Why we should change anything because we are not on Earth when something happens.
In this case, I will use the environment and climate change as an example. I know that somebody expected anything else. There are people, who are denying this thing. So they can go to the jungle, and interview some villains, who are repeating the word "yes, yes". Then they would tell how positive things the rising temperature is to those people, who are living in the houses, what is on the top of pylons. They can say, that they are happy now because they can fish straight from their houses, and when the children would go to school by using rubber boats. We want to believe that thing. Those people have own experience, how positive thing is the rising temperature.
This makes them hard to deny. The negative context is causing interest, and if we have some kind of opinion about the thing, that thing causes that our opinion would get support from the fake news. Let's think about the cases, where a person has just bought a new car. That car is really expensive. Would we want to listen to the things about environmental chancing in that case? Then we see the article, where is a story about the slowing of the increase in temperature. We would read that thing because it will support our opinion, that we cannot do anything ourselves, or we can change bad things to the next generations.
This is the thing in pseudoscience and fake news. If we would start to think about the black holes they are far away. There are billions or at least hundreds of lightyears to the nearest black hole, so let them be. We cannot affect those things. But when we are denying the environment change, we can make two things, we can deny the research.
That is one version, but the second version is that we can say, that the environment changes, but there is the national interest before it. And then the result is that the national interest would be boosted with the opinion, that the generations of the future are not here, and the political leaders would not get any votes from them. So why we must think about them. This means that the thing is one version of popularity.
Comments
Post a Comment