This is false and a cheap trick for gaining attentional emphasis.
Of course it is a truism to understand that medias often use omissions and quantifier alteration.
It might be more frequent than straight lies however the media do lies often about basic facts and as such it is not rare let alone very rare.
A common straight lie for example is to claim that there is no scientific evidence about something or to claim there is a single and consensual scientific voice about something.
Those straights lies (just one example among many) are very frequent and potent.
There's also the tactic by media supporters of having different standards for literal truth.
"We didn't literally mean there's absoluitely no scientific evidence for it. We meant that there's no good scientific evidence that has been published in Nature."
Of course, this is a one way ratchet. If the media said X, but means Y, and X is false, we're supposed to ignore the literal falsity of X. But if Y is false, we're supposed to do the opposite and ignore the falsity, taking X literally instead.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This is false and a cheap trick for gaining attentional emphasis.
Of course it is a truism to understand that medias often use omissions and quantifier alteration.
It might be more frequent than straight lies however the media do lies often about basic facts and as such it is not rare let alone very rare.
A common straight lie for example is to claim that there is no scientific evidence about something or to claim there is a single and consensual scientific voice about something.
Those straights lies (just one example among many) are very frequent and potent.
There's also the tactic by media supporters of having different standards for literal truth.
"We didn't literally mean there's absoluitely no scientific evidence for it. We meant that there's no good scientific evidence that has been published in Nature."
Of course, this is a one way ratchet. If the media said X, but means Y, and X is false, we're supposed to ignore the literal falsity of X. But if Y is false, we're supposed to do the opposite and ignore the falsity, taking X literally instead.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link