"Improper" use of facts | Forum

#1

I remember a case not all that long ago when the findings of a researcher (it might've been a report card for then-Senator Harris indicating she was one of the least productive members of Congress) were pounced upon by Republicans for one reason or another.

In response, that researcher got upset, claimed his/her findings were being misrepresented, and scrubbed the page from the internet. I don't believe this is actually what happened; more like, what they were saying amounted to “I, the source of this knowledge, did not consent to said knowledge being used to support this ideology, and I conflate doing so with misrepresentation of said knowledge.”

Some of you may remember the story and it is sort of old news at this point, but I think there wasn't enough discussion around this idea: that a fact can be “properly” or “improperly” used depending on the originator's intent, as opposed to facts being in themselves neutral things that belong to nobody and to everybody. Or alternately, the idea that information which would be used for “wrong” purposes should be stifled; for example, FBI reporting on race and crime.

The idea isn't completely without merit. If you peeped on a woman in the shower and photographed her without her knowledge or consent, that is simply “knowledge of her unclothed appearance” but very serious moral problems would arise from this, or from thereafter disseminating said information to the public. In contrast, that same woman has a right to share a nude selfie with her boyfriend or husband. So this is an example of facts having proper/improper use based on the originator's intent. We can also say more broadly that privacy rights are the same way.

But to what extent can this be said about research or statistics?

Edit comment

Mentions Text*

I remember a case not all that long ago when the findings of a researcher (it might've been a report card for then-Senator Harris indicating she was one of the least productive members of Congress) were pounced upon by Republicans for one reason or another.In response, that researcher got upset, claimed his/her findings were being misrepresented, and scrubbed the page from the internet. I don't believe this is actually what happened; more like, what they were saying amounted to “I, the source of this knowledge, did not consent to said knowledge being used to support this ideology, and I conflate doing so with misrepresentation of said knowledge.” Some of you may remember the story and it is sort of old news at this point, but I think there wasn't enough discussion around this idea: that a fact can be “properly” or “improperly” used depending on the originator's intent, as opposed to facts being in themselves neutral things that belong to nobody and to everybody. Or alternately, the idea that information which would be used for “wrong” purposes should be stifled; for example, FBI reporting on race and crime. The idea isn't completely without merit. If you peeped on a woman in the shower and photographed her without her knowledge or consent, that is simply “knowledge of her unclothed appearance” but very serious moral problems would arise from this, or from thereafter disseminating said information to the public. In contrast, that same woman has a right to share a nude selfie with her boyfriend or husband. So this is an example of facts having proper/improper use based on the originator's intent. We can also say more broadly that privacy rights are the same way.  But to what extent can this be said about research or statistics?

#2

No. Facts are a subset of data which has truth value. The (supposed) purpose of a journalist is to disseminate facts to the public for consideration. The same is true of an FBI statistician preparing a public report. Once the fact is disseminated their job is done - if they play a role afterwards in how the facts which they presented are analyzed, discussed, or deployed in debate than you introduce a kind of totalitarian creep that's very dangerous. Peeping toms really have nothing to do with this and are a bad analogy - they aren't looking for facts, they're looking to get off. This is why pornography is treated differently than political discussion when it comes to 1A protections.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#3

@bubbatheclown

Well, 'data is often property.

Observations, experiments, statistics.

I can understand people not wanting their property to be used against their ideals, or twisted to the purposes of others.

People often make big jump assumptions/conclusions from smaller 'facts.

. . . But then, I'm not so sure ‘facts are ’so often 'facts.

They're often ‘data, theories, impliers.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#4

Rex is correct. . Facts are a subset of data which has truth value.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#5

@RexFavilla

The (supposed) purpose of a journalist is to disseminate facts to the public for consideration.

They are not paid to consider the public. Many private interests subsidize the media. Even government subsidized media like the CBC isn't really public as it's beholden to the priorities of politicians whose main concern is securing their reelection funds, not providing unvarnished truth to the public. In both cases, the “facts” are filtered through the interests of whoever holds the purse strings.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#6

@Shoresy

They are not paid to consider the public. Many private interests subsidize the media. Even government subsidized media like the CBC isn't really public as it's beholden to the priorities of politicians whose main concern is securing their reelection funds, not providing unvarnished truth to the public. In both cases, the “facts” are filtered through the interests of whoever holds the purse strings.

Hence the 'supposed'. To quote John Swinton's infamous press dinner speech:

There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an "Independent Press"! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

<blockquote>They are not paid to consider the public. Many private interests subsidize the media. Even government subsidized media like the CBC isn't really public as it's beholden to the priorities of politicians whose main concern is securing their reelection funds, not providing unvarnished truth to the public. In both cases, the “facts” are filtered through the interests of whoever holds the purse strings.</blockquote> Hence the 'supposed'. To quote John Swinton's infamous press dinner speech: <blockquote>There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an "Independent Press"! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.</blockquote>

#7

I don't think the analogy really works. Sharing a nude photo of someone is not misrepresenting them, even if it is an "improper use" of information (if we can even call the photo information or knowledge). Actually, the whole problem is that you are accurately representing that person.

And even though the woman is the subject, the peeper is technically the originator of the photo so any intent for that information belongs to him, not the woman. If the researcher is the originator of his research regardless of the subject, the same should be said of the photographer.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#8

@Fruit_Inspector

Showing nude pictures should be seen as total exposure.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#9

@Debby

Showing nude pictures should be seen as total exposure. It worked for Melania.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#10

@FLRW

She got Trump to sign a prenuptial instead of an NDA.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

Conversation

Edit comment

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post