Tim Harford writes The Problem With Factswhich uses Brexit and Trump as jumping-off points to argue that people are mostly impervious to facts and resistant to logic: Facts, it seems, are toothless.
Trying to refute a bold, memorable lie with a fiddly set of facts can often serve to reinforce the myth. Important truths are often stale and dull, and it is easy to manufacture new, more engaging claims. And giving people more facts can backfire, as those facts provoke a defensive reaction in someone who badly wants to stick to their We should not censor internet pornography essay world view.
I think this is generally a good article and makes important points, but there are three issues I want to highlight as possibly pointing to a deeper pattern. Harford expects us to be impressed by this study. But how is this different from all of those social science facts to which he believes humans are mostly impervious?
But given that the entire field is now in serious doubt, I feel like it would have been judicious to mention some of this in the article.
This is especially true given that the article itself is about the way that false ideas spread by people never double-checking their beliefs. Yet Harford writes an entire article about a worldwide plague of false beliefs without mustering enough vigilance to see if the relevant studies are true or not.
His key example is tobacco companies sowing doubt about the negative health effects of smoking — for example, he talks about tobacco companies sponsoring accurate research into all of the non-smoking-related causes of disease so that everyone focused on those instead.
But his solution — telling engaging stories, adding a human interest element, enjoyable documentaries in the style of Carl Sagan — seems unusually unsuited to the problem. The National Institute of Health can make an engaging human interest documentary about a smoker who got lung cancer.
And the tobacco companies can make an engaging human interest documentary about a guy who got cancer because of asbestos, then was saved by tobacco-sponsored research.
Opponents of Brexit can make an engaging documentary about all the reasons Brexit would be bad, and then proponents of Brexit can make an engaging documentary about all the reasons Brexit would be good.
If you get good documentary-makers, I assume both will be equally convincing regardless of what the true facts are. All three of these points are slightly unfair.
But I worry that taken together, they suggest an unspoken premise of the piece. The fundamental problem is one of transmission: Medical researchers have lots of useful facts about vaccines. Statisticians know some great facts about the link between tobacco and cancer shame about Ronald Fisherthough.
Probably there are even some social scientists who have a fact or two. Imagine a theory of jurisprudence designed only to smack down sovereign citizens, or a government pro-innovation policy based entirely on warning inventors against perpetual motion machines.
And in this wider context, part of me wonders if the focus on transmission is part of the problem. Everyone from statisticians to Brexiteers knows that they are right. The only remaining problem is how to convince others. Go on Facebook and you will find a million people with a million different opinions, each confident in her own judgment, each zealously devoted to informing everyone else.
They all fight each other for space at the blackboard, give lectures that nobody listens to, assign homework that nobody does. When everyone gets abysmal test scores, one of the teachers has an idea: I need a more engaging curriculum. A new Nathan Robinson article: It goes through the same steps as the Harford article, this time from the perspective of the political Left.
Some leftists think the answer is violence. In conclusion, Bernie Would Have Won. But this might not suggest anything about the possibilities of persuasion and dialogue.
Instead, it might suggest that mere facts are rhetorically insufficient to get people excited about your political program. The resemblance to Harford is obvious. But you might be able to convince people with facts carefully intermixed with human interest, compelling narrative, and emotional appeal.
Once again, I think this is generally a good article and makes important points. But I still want to challenge whether things are quite as bad as it says.
The overall picture you get is of a world full of Trump opponents and supporters debating on every street corner, until finally, after months of banging their heads against the wall, everyone collectively decided it was futile. Yet I have the opposite impression.In short, the internet should not be censored because firstly, there is nobody that can determine which sites should be banned or allowed, and secondly, censorship is not the /5(3).
Should The Government Censor The Internet Media Essay. Print Reference this. Published: 23rd March, in support of internet censorship have been issues relating to preventing access to illegal contents and child pornography, racism, fraud terrorism, religion etc.
We can help with your essay Find out more. Essays; Media; Essay on We Should NOT Censor Internet Pornography - Pornography is an age-old phenomenon that has been under much modern-day scrutiny.
With the recent proliferation of online pornography, possible social ramifications of sexually explicit material on uncontrolled mediums have become the subjects of intense debate. “DID HITLER WANT WAR?” asks the internationally renowned author and political analyst, Pat Buchanan, in his recent book, “Hitler And The Unnecessary War.” Buchanan answers his own question with a definitive “No” — proving with documented facts that Hitler tried every possible means to.
🔥Citing and more! Add citations directly into your paper, Check for unintentional plagiarism and check for writing mistakes. The Government owns and operates the Internet and its agencies are responsible for what is on the Internet.
However, for the parents with minors that are concerned about what their kids see- they should go out and get software to censor the Internet.