NPR’s CEO: truth is a distraction in the way of getting things done

[Bootstrap]

NPR ... had its CEO give a talk where she claims “reverence for the truth gets in the way of getting things done”.

Actually, NPR did not have her give that talk, and she was not yet at NPR when she gave it.

The best way to honor truth is to be careful with the truth. And that's hard - it takes time and effort.

Bit of straining at gnats here, isn’t it?

I don't think so. I think this is at the core of the issue.

I think your positioning of this was misleading in important ways. She did not say that truth is a distraction in the way of getting things done, for instance. This was not a talk that NPR asked her to give, it was a TED talk on Wikipedia. She believes there is absolute truth, she just doesn't think you and I are in possession of it, and that we need ways to work through our disagreements.

She said "reverence for the truth" gets in the way, particularly when it's reverence for "my truth that those other people don't get". And perhaps especially when it comes to "truths" that we find on Twitter or other political sources. Doing truth together requires caring about the facts that can be known and getting them right. The "facts" that were misrepresented in the OP make it easy for people who "revere the truth" to be outraged. But they aren't true.

So how do people who actually care about truth enough to do the hard work of pursuing facts and truth do that? That's actually what her talk is about. I think Wikipedia has been more successful at that than MN has, where we each seem to proclaim our own "truth" and do not seem to come to agreement on what can be known based on facts.

And FWIW, that's what frees us from postmodernism and relativism. Pursuing what is knowable truth together, acknowledging our limitations, acknowledging our biases. We simply cannot make up our own facts. Getting the facts wrong matters. Especially when the things we get wrong rhyme with the political outrage machines in the world around us. An outrage that "reveres" truth and pays it lip service, but can't do the hard work of actually doing truth.

Before starting an outrage thread, best to start small, to view the entire video together and see what it says. On this kind of topic, there is no truth without careful attention to knowable facts.

[Josh]

Hey, Boot, maybe you have your truth and I have my truth, right?

[Bootstrap]

Hey, Boot, maybe you have your truth and I have my truth, right?

And neither of these is "the" truth.

Wittgenstein used this analogy. Suppose you and I are wandering through the wilderness. You have a map and so do I. Why? Because the ground truth, the wilderness itself, is too complex for either of us to fully grasp. So we build oversimplified maps that are easy to understand and navigate by. But the real truth is the wilderness itself, the map is just an attempt to make it more navigable.

Your map is wrong. So is mine. How do we correct our maps? Mostly by (1) bumping around the wilderness, seeing that there is a cliff where I expected a pond, and correcting our maps, or (2) comparing our maps with each other, seeing the differences, and thinking about what we are able to know about the actual wilderness that is the ground truth.

Both God and the Bible are rather complex, and beyond our easy grasp. Our maps may not completely reflect them. That's to be expected. Most of the "facts" we discuss here are wildernesses of their own. We can't grasp them by seeing a Tweet and reposting them. It's harder than that. That's why we need communities of discernment.

So how do we structure our conversations to make that possible? If we actually care about ground truth, that's a vitally important question.

[Josh]

OK, I’ll refine it to “NPR CEO says reverence for truth gets in the way of getting things done” (in the context of “health information” during the “pandemic”). Is that better, Boot?

In the pursuit of truth, irrelevant details can be ignored.

[Bootstrap]

OK, I’ll refine it to “NPR CEO says reverence for truth gets in the way of getting things done” (in the context of “health information” during the “pandemic”). Is that better, Boot?

And her position is that the facts are knowable, but our maps clash, even if there is one wilderness. And our maps reflect our beliefs, identities, and values, which can often trump the knowable facts.

Here's how she put it:

Fortunately, I’ve seen how, at Wikipedia, we can come to cooperative and productive conversations around disagreement and decision making without using one shared truth as our baseline. Its generous and accommodating approach offers us a practical way to take it down a notch, focusing on something a little less stressful: the best of what can be known right now. And the good news is we can know a lot of things. We have high-quality information, facts, and data that allow us to do things like track the migration of endangered species or the spread of a pandemic around the world.

These are useful tools in our toolbox, but they don’t necessarily alone change minds or unite disparate views. So how do we do that?

[Bootstrap]

In the pursuit of truth, irrelevant details can be ignored.

In the pursuit of truth, truth matters. We can ignore irrelevant details, but any misrepresentation - especially misrepresentations that frame the conversation - is a major issue.

These misrepresentations are an important way to defend our personal maps against the ground truth of the wilderness. And most of the time, we didn't make them up. We inherited them from the world around us.

[Josh]

In the pursuit of truth, irrelevant details can be ignored.

In the pursuit of truth, truth matters. We can ignore irrelevant details, but any misrepresentation - especially misrepresentations that frame the conversation - is a major issue.

These misrepresentations are an important way to defend our personal maps against the ground truth of the wilderness. And most of the time, we didn't make them up. We inherited them from the world around us.

OK.

So can you explain how this supposed expert on truth led Wikipedia in a direction where they lie about people’s sex and go so far as to eliminate any records of what a real person’s sex is?

To give just one example.

[Bootstrap]

So can you explain how this supposed expert on truth led Wikipedia in a direction where they lie about people’s sex and go so far as to eliminate any records of what a real person’s sex is?

To give just one example.

Did she?

I think they were doing that before they chose her as CEO. NPR had reached a point that I stopped listening to it entirely. I think it has moderated under her watch. There's a lot I disagree with, but it's a lot better than it was before. For instance, I have heard stories questioning the wisdom of the whole trans world view, especially when it comes to helping children with gender dysphoria.

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/05/08 ... care-youth

She has been CEO of NPR since March, 2024. So she has had 5 months so far. I'm not sure that's enough for us who are outside the system to know exactly how she is steering NPR now. Most CEOs spend some time learning the ropes and getting to know the people before taking decisive action.

[GaryK]

So can you explain how this supposed expert on truth led Wikipedia in a direction where they lie about people’s sex and go so far as to eliminate any records of what a real person’s sex is?

To give just one example.

Did she?

I think they were doing that before they chose her as CEO. NPR had reached a point that I stopped listening to it entirely. I think it has moderated under her watch. There's a lot I disagree with, but it's a lot better than it was before. For instance, I have heard stories questioning the wisdom of the whole trans world view, especially when it comes to helping children with gender dysphoria.

She has been CEO of NPR since March, 2024. So she has had 5 months so far. I'm not sure that's enough for us who are outside the system to know exactly how she is steering NPR now. Most CEOs spend some time learning the ropes and getting to know the people before taking decisive action.

I think Josh said she led Wikipedia, not NPR, in that direction.

[temporal1]

… did she acknowledge Jesus as being the manifestation of truth, at all?

if she did, i didn’t hear it.
i’m astonished that anyone can get into protracted contests with various Christians on this forum, without ever reconciling differences, yet comfortably jump on board with the OP gal, who may have never glanced at a Bible or attended church.

i wonder what she would think about scriptural truths of submission and obedience?
i have a hunch she could talk all day - against it.

maybe she will begin a forum to invite discussion. SecularNet?

i think i’ll add a Voddie Baucham video that addresses truth/Truth in today’s world.
P.6:
viewtopic.php?t=3774&start=50

VB addresses how present culture wants to extract Jesus’ wisdom+Truth, while removing His name .. i see it far too frequently.

Video Description:
All Christians living in modern society need to know THIS Bible passage. In this video, Voddie Baucham dives into Acts 4 to teach us about the ever-loving truth and the parallels we see between the culture in Acts 4 and our culture.