see URL: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47668946
I do like a bit of science sometimes, it does tend to outdo the beliefs
of those who suffer from gut reaction and misplaced belief systems, such
as religious ones, or practical experience, including atheistic beliefs
and philosophical beliefs in the more esoteric dark web of our lives. I
am one of those who believes in the scientific method, but I also admit
that I have my doubts about it, sometimes pondering that a lot of
science is made up, or achieves funding more because of the individual
or group of scientists marketing and publicity capability, rather than
his/her expertise in the application of scientific principles to the
question he/she is setting out to prove. In fact a lot of it these days,
comes across as pseudo science, people who want to be paid for research
in a job, need to get the money from somewhere. However, this may be the
cynic in me, being very much an amateur, and, trying in my own little
way, to prove whether something works, not because of my beliefs that it
will work, but because that it does actually work objectively in
reality. However, it begs that question once again, what is objective
reality, and what is the difference between it as a subjective reality.
After all, we are all objects as well as being subjects. We are all
individuals, but are the product of a social reality, made up of human
beings. Does the universe exist independently of us, or does it live and
die with each individual...solipsism, Bishop Barclay...etc.
The scientific method of course, is the latest belief system which has
been invented...or created...by us human beings, and is supposed to
supersede the religious belief of pre Darwinian Times, when the Theory
of Evolution, and remember it is just a theory, won the day over the old
belief systems of the church on Creation, 7 days and 5,000 years old;
and we are all the sons (and daughters?) of God, via the Holy Trinity
and the infallibility of the Pope, depending on what interpretations and
belief systems one has on defining it, and the associated science of
scientific fact, which are all objective and founded on the basis of
objectivity and objective reality. A conundrum of course, is that due
to the limitations of our language, an objective fact, an objective
interpretation, can also be a subjective fact or a subjective
interpretation. In presenting a scientific theory one can allude to
facts which support one's hypothesis, thesis or synthesis, on a
particular scientific process, by only quoting those facts which support
it, conveniently forgetting about those facts which contradict it. And
of course, scientific facts and processes only survive as long as the
next scientific experiment furthers knowledge or takes it all apart and
supplants it with a new scientific theory. There are no absolutes, to
quote an absolute, there are only trends.
Do all facts have weight of equal value? Should we, as human beings, as
philosophers, make it law that all facts have equal weight, have a
constitution and equal law of opportunity based upon it? Stupid question
really, what about quantum physics, or the theory of relativity, the
bendy universe, or Schrodinger's' cat, which exists in at least two
universes at the same time, now you see me, now you don't. Life is so
contradictory, in my view. But would I have it in any other way? Just
think, if you and I were able to predict what was going to happen
tomorrow, or 10 years hence, if we were to be able to remove all forms
of chance in the equation which affects our lives, our quality of life,
our length of life: where would that leave you and me. We wouldn't have
to bother about thinking about problems, after all, our lives are
already mapped out and there is nothing that we can think, do or say
which will change it...so why should we bother? We could get rid of the
thinking parts, of our minds and just exist as things on the planet,
human beings without a mind.
Returning to the question of Russian Bots and the Social Media. A very
important decision was taken in the USA a number of years back, which
said that the digital Social Media was not to be considered as
publishers per se, but as platforms. What is the difference? Well,
publishers have a lot more responsibilities, rights and duties,to Joe
Public if you like. Publishers are responsible in law for what they
publish on their platforms, whether they be newspapers or television or
radio or other such media, to their own nation state, or to the nation
state of others. In other words there are elements of control on what
they put out on their platforms. But social media, like Facebook, etc,
are considered as platforms, and somehow exempt from the ordinary law of
human beings; the key thing here is that as platforms they are not
responsible in law for what is said or done on their platforms, that
comes down to the individual poster or contributor. It of course has led
to all sorts of things, from wars on terror by nation states being
broadcast all over the world, like the Vietnam War, or individual cases
such as the New Zealand terrorist broadcasting his murderous activities
live and others passing on the video. Should concepts of free speech
allow for this sort of thing, or should it be banned, and the media held
to account for it. Does the public have the right to see such things,
should they be banned from seeing it. Should we publicist the war in
Syria, show torture and murder on social media, without any social or
economic consequences? What about censorship, another vexed question.
Would the social media have developed in the same way as it has now, if
it hadn't been for that, dare I say, loophole in the law, where they
escape from liability for what others are saying? Would the internet and
world wide web have developed in the same way. Is the world wide web and
internet free and does it deserve to be free to publish whatever it
wants to publish?
Let us look at bots for instance, or the gathering of information, the
profiling of individuals using their likes or dislikes or individual
preferences, opinions and perspectives, their beliefs, habits, their
political and sexual orientation, their location, the the type of houses
they live in, their health, their net worth, the preoccupations and
little obsessions. These are all subject of this new mathematical
computerised power tool, called the algorithm. We all may laugh, or get
annoyed at the fact that we see adverts directed at us via the search
engines or other social media asking us to purchase what we have already
bought, but how do we feel when we found out that there is an
expectation within reasonable mathematical probability that our next
purchase will be x? And that we will have enough money to afford to pay
y, never mind the objective market price!
And then, of course there is the polarisation of views which are caused
by Facebook "friends" like and dislike, of views and opinions presented,
us being encouraged that other people believe in what we are saying and
supporting us, at the same time excluding the views of others who
disagree, it makes us feel more comfortable, does it not. After, all
who wants to be hated over Brexit or Remaining? And then there is
another principle which occurs, the algorithm, which along with computer
power, reliant on using other peoples computers to organise a bot can
flood servers, and crash them, or influence public opinion on the
platform so that people are convinced that their opinion or beliefs or
actions are more important and more valuable than they actually are?
Yet, determining the actual, becomes very difficult, because so many
bots and so many people and organisations are at it. So, we have a
situation where the application of science, scientific methodology,
proofs of the repetition of experiments, produces an outcome which is
not scientific at all, i.e. it is not objective or subjective, it is
more about the manipulation of individual minds into a collective wish,
dream, fantasy, which it then attempts to turn into scientific objective
reality...
Just a few thoughts on the scientific method and its application in our
world of today...I told you, I am already suffering withdrawal symptoms
from Ubuntu...:-)
ATB
Dougie.
