[monkeyelite]

> there is some overtly unbiased information source, in opposition to the information sourced from the company which has obvious incentives.

Yes I don’t believe in unbiased sources. I believe in multiple perspectives revealing aspects of the truth.

> you are (possibly inadvertently) claiming that the company is also providing a different source of truth

Correct. And I don’t buy the dichotomy you are framing of biased companies vs unbiased government.

> Don’t be the person who adds nuance for the sake of nuance.

The term “objective truth” was just thrown around. Might as well just say it’s an “absolutely good”. The level of discourse in these threads is science = good, agency with science in name = science. Cuts against agency = bad.

What are the costs and benefits to this organization? It appears some sub threads have identified a possible overlap with other agency’s responsibility. It would be interesting to know the extent that is true.

[kurikuri]

> Yes I don’t believe in unbiased sources. I believe in multiple perspectives revealing aspects of the truth.

Sure, I agree with what you’ve stated here.

> Correct. And I don’t buy the dichotomy you are framing of biased companies vs unbiased government.

I reread what I wrote and still don’t see that I framed the conversation in this way. What I did frame was the motivation of the company (which I implied to be profit) versus the motive of the government (that of public interest). These are both biased and the effect of the bias could be anticipated: companies would slant their published information with a focus on the effects of profits, whereas the government’s overt bias would slant its information output towards safety (in the case of the CSB) without much concern for profit.

> The term “objective truth” was just thrown around. Might as well just say it’s an “absolutely good”. The level of discourse in these threads is science = good, agency with science in name = science. Cuts against agency = bad.

Sure, we both agree the author is biased towards the government, but you’ve missed the thrust of what I wrote entirely: your nuance added absolutely no value to the discussion, it didn’t make a point or refute anything the author said.

[fireflash38]

You believe in multiple sources to verify truth. Then why are you arguing against one of these sources? Why are you (effectively) saying that we should just trust a single source of truth - the companies who have explicit financial incentives to deceive?

[potato3732842]

He didn't say that he was against anything. He just nitpicked over impartial vs different bias and everyone jumped down his throat over it.

[ordu]

> Yes I don’t believe in unbiased sources. I believe in multiple perspectives revealing aspects of the truth.

It is just metaphysics. I like it also, but it is impractical. I find it useful to train my mind to see things from different angles, but it is useless to talk about concrete things.

Can you find examples of a biased reports on CSB's youtube channel? If not, it is a good example of uselessness of metaphysics. If you are declaring all their reports biased, while being unable to show the bias, it is just empty words.

[monkeyelite]

> It is just metaphysics

I would call it having a baseline understanding of organizations and media.

> Can you find examples of a biased reports on CSB's youtube channel?

Yes? Can you not?

The top video in this thread, “safety pays off“ highlights their successes and does not discuss their failures or costs. So yes that video was designed to make their organization appear in the best light possible.

[garte]

So you would subtract their failures from their successes and make some sort of calculation about its usefulness from that?

The world doesn't work like that. Objectively, it doesn't.

[monkeyelite]

No. If I heard a proposal to remove them I would want to hear the reasons why or why not rather than assuming that they are an absolute good for society.

[ordu]

> The top video in this thread, “safety pays off“ highlights their successes and does not discuss their failures or costs. So yes that video was designed to make their organization appear in the best light possible.

Oh, yes, you are right, it is a bias. But this bias tells us nothing about objectivity of CSB investigations and recommendations. It tells us nothing about the objectivity you had objected to.

[monkeyelite]

Is your position that they create unbiased reports? Just straight up truth making machine?

[nsriv]

Re: overlap with other agency's responsibility

So you would prefer that only one agency speak with one voice on a subject? Sounds very counter to the "multiple perspectives revealing aspects of the truth" principle you espoused. In practice, government agencies often have disagreements in areas of overlap and hash it out before making a public recommendation, or settling on a course of action.

[monkeyelite]

> So you would prefer that only one agency speak with one voice on a subject?

It’s generally better to know what each groups bias is and compensate than to pretend there are unbiased groups. That rhetorical move tends to be the most malicious and deceiving.

[intermerda]

> Yes I don’t believe in unbiased sources. I believe in multiple perspectives revealing aspects of the truth.

Do you believe in priors? Or do you evaluate each perspective at its face value?

> Correct. And I don’t buy the dichotomy you are framing of biased companies vs unbiased government.

That's not the dichotomy here. It's a biased government acting on behalf of biased companies.

> The term “objective truth” was just thrown around. Might as well just say it’s an “absolutely good”. The level of discourse in these threads is science = good, agency with science in name = science. Cuts against agency = bad.

The only discourse you personally have contributed is "both sides."

> What are the costs and benefits to this organization? It appears some sub threads have identified a possible overlap with other agency’s responsibility. It would be interesting to know the extent that is true.

Sounds like you are intentionally giving benefit of doubt to well-known bad faith actors. This makes you incredibly naive at best, or biased sealioner at worst.

[monkeyelite]

> Sounds like you are intentionally giving benefit of doubt to well-known bad faith actors.

Sounds like you are reasoning with emotional labels and not information.