> We've not had a shortage of emphasis on empiricism and critical thinking in the last few decades.

Shortage, with respect to what standard?

And for the magnitude of "empiricism and critical thinking":

a) Are you speaking in absolute or relative terms?

b) How are you performing your measurements, for both the positive and negative types?

>>> What's to be done, then, before we reach sufficient education and critical thinking skills? I mean, that's kind of a boil-the-ocean solution, as you observe. When Trump suggested that ingesting bleach could cure COVID-19, 30 people in NY state were hospitalized the next day for drinking bleach.

>> It may seem like that, but is it really? Is there some uncertainty involved in the problem space?

> Only insofar as "we need to cultivate critical thinking" is still viewed as a valid response to mass hysteria and delusion.

That's the only uncertainty you're able to see? Nothing regarding what actually constitutes "critical thinking", how we teach it, how we measure it (that it is actually occurring, where it is occurring (or not), and how successful it is), what domains we apply it to, etc?

>>> When Trump suggested that ingesting bleach could cure COVID-19, 30 people in NY state were hospitalized the next day for drinking bleach.

>> If we were to go through the effort of decomposing and explicitly unpacking this sentence, do you think there may be a few epistemic flaws in it, even without taking into account the complexities involved in how others perceive and conceptualize the statement?

> You've mistaken an illustration for an argument.

a) I don't see the importance of the distinction in this case. What was the intended meaning you wanted to communicate to readers when you chose to include that specific sentence?

b) You dodged the question. If you prefer to not discuss specific epistemic details regarding statements you make, that's fine by me, but I prefer to converse in an explicit, transparent manner, in order to minimize rhetorical techniques.

>> How about we see if the more capable than average minds here at HN are capable of it?

> The community at lesswrong.com has bred a bunch of officious assholes, and no general improvement in the community of thinking. Also, Silicon Valley is synonymous with the "more capable than average minds here at HN", and what we have to show for it is the globalised ad market destroying local journalism, and an opt-out surveillance network that intelligence agencies couldn't have dreamed of 50 years ago. The more-capable-than-average minds have proven themselves to be more self-absorbed and venal than the most cynical evangelical preacher could have imagined.

Is it a fair interpretation of your comment to be roughly something like:

a) you are not in support of trying to see if we can find a way to improve critical thinking (and discussion) skills here at HN?

b) attempts at this in other communities have failed, therefore it logically follows that it will fail here also?

If that is a misinterpretation of your words, would you be willing to explain more clearly what your intended meaning is?

> My objection to your idea is that we've had ideal conditions over the last two decades...

What variables are you measuring, how do you measure them (current values, and past values), and how do you know they are ideal?

> ...for enlightened thinking to dominate, and it has proven to be more effectively un-enlightened than anything that has come before. We've made a wealth of information available at everyone's fingertips, and the result is unparalleled tribalism and cherry-picking.

Are you asserting that we have already taken a perfectly optimal approach, it failed, and all subsequent attempts will also fail (despite the values of many variables having changed)? If so, how are you measuring these things, and how can the future be predicted with confidence in a scenario involving so many variables, many of which are incredibly difficult to measure, and many that we likely don't even know are relevant, or even exist?

And if this isn't what you're asserting...then what are you asserting?

> The most obvious con-man possible is president of the United States

The most obvious one. But, do you proclaim to know that he is the biggest "con" in the game, or might there be other people, organizations, or informal entities running cons too?

> You can't plausibly suggest that more of the same intellectual diligence is the answer.

No, that's the opposite of what I'm suggesting. I am suggesting we start thinking more critically. Speak in objective, confirmable facts, rather than colorful rhetoric and heuristic based narratives that cannot be strongly substantiated with evidence and reason. Let's speak in matters of fact, rather than matters of opinion, or at least be honest(!) when we're passing off the latter as the former. Let's realize and acknowledge that we all get psychologically "triggered" when running up against an argument that is contrary to our heuristic axioms. Let's realize and acknowledge that we don't see and experience infinitely complex reality directly, but only perceive it through our limited senses and incredibly complex, poorly understood cognitive processes. And furthermore, most people aren't even in direct contact with the physical reality related to the complex, high resolution opinions they hold, but have rather constructed an internal mental model based on consuming information provided by third parties, which is subject to not only all the shortcomings listed here, but also the fact that much of it is very obvious propaganda, subject to framing, cherry picking and twisting of statistics, censorship, and many other things...the end result being that our perception of reality is often comically disjointed from actual reality.

And let's also realize that there is an incredibly strong reluctance on HN to realize and acknowledge all these obvious truths during conversations like this, that people have very confident opinions, but if someone challenges them, rarely is anyone able to defend them with without resorting to more subjective narratives with no supporting evidence.