列印模式主題
按這裡檢視本主題的原始格式 |
香港三國論壇 > 襄陽城 > 哈佛教授:看清楚! 真正崛起的是沒做功課的選民 |
發表者: willyho Jun 8 2019, 22:43 |
Another issue is when opinions can be expressed and spread out so easily. If one looks at the search algorithms on social media, such as facebook, it is obvious that the recommended pages are very tailored. This is despite fact-checking an opinion/idea is also very easy. Fact-checking is sometimes a tedious process, and something people (including yours truly) have a tendency to avoid. The issue becomes more apparent when the topic is something nobody can really claim expertise, such as political opinions. It's no more "death of expertise" than death of "individuality". (In the sense of willingness to think as an individual, to take responsibility, and to check whether one's own beliefs actually correlate to reality) |
發表者: willyho Jun 11 2019, 05:49 |
In addition, if the reference point in the book is the US, my understanding is that those in the less "progressive" states view the more "progressive" states as being more elitist and snobbish. Trump won the election, partly because he was able to connect to the people as "one of them". Something that neither Obama, nor Clinton could easily do. If I recall correctly, both graduated from Ivy League universities. Hence they are a part of the elite, so to speak. Also Trump is willing to lie through his teeth, or get "down-and-dirty", to win the election. A part of the problem, I think is the rise of the "celebrity intellectual", who tend to misuse their credentials. My pet example is Jordan Peterson. While there is no argument that he is an expert in evolutionary psychology, he is most certainly NOT an expert in social values, political opinions. (And of course philosophy) But he seems to have no issue with expressing opinions outside his field of expertise as iron facts. A second issue, though it seems to be a cultural thing, is the reluctance to admit ignorance or express doubt. To admit ignorance is not the same as selling ignorance as a virtue. Admitting ignorance also entails (to me at least) rectifying said ignorance by finding information on the topic. A third issue, related to the previous point, is the desire to find a rigid, standardised definition of right and wrong. This is seen in the very active, if not forced spread of beliefs onto others. A recent example is the court case in Hong Kong regarding the same-sex couple. The law, should not be a tool to promote personal values. More utilitarian questions should be asked by the verdict such as potential harm that may result if said couple obtained their tax-benefits as civil servants. The verdict should be independent of the judge's own personal values regarding marriage. The point is that individual freedom is retained as long as said freedom does not infringe upon the same freedom on others. Whether a same-sex couple does marry is of no consequence to straight couples. (what consenting adults do in their private space is between them and them only) |