Message from @hamburgersareyummy1
Discord ID: 549458935040704512
Joe spent his parent's money to spend time in a classroom taught by an idealogue, got a degree from it, and is now qualified to be truthful when he merely parrots what his idealogue professor told him.
That's not qualification.
if not from people whoo a trained and certified, then where can we draw conclusions about issues or questions in society
That's all it takes to be a *qualified Psychologist* now. Sit in a room, listen to a guy speak, he has to like you enough to pass you, and suddenly that means you're qualified to translate what the field of psychology has set as the consensus.
From anyone who is saying the truth, regardless of how rich they are or where they went to school.
ok well how do you determine who is telling the truth
If you find a wordpress blog entry on a topic has the truth, but the wikipedia article on the topic doesn't, why should you trust the qualified wikipedia editors and academics they source when the truth didn't lead to them?
You determine who is telling the truth by carefully analyzing their claims and finding whether the logic allows for it to make sense and then whether any data supports their claim.
The only way you can win is to take it one claim at a time.
where can the data come from if not the scientific community
anyone, anywhere.
You can get weather data from old men in Alaska who kept a journal of the snow height everyday.
that creates so many issues
There really isn't a shortage of the data, the bottleneck comes from the filtering of the data to academics, then from academics to the public.
thats a good thing
forcing the data to go through a process to see if it was fairly obtained reliable is good
It's the telephone game.
The data says 7, the academic makes the data say 8 because he wants to make his finding seem cooler and more revolutionary than it is, the journalist makes it known the academic and data say 10 because he needs to sell clicks, and the guy listening to the journalist now believes 11 is a valid number because the journalist said it could be up to 11 in order to sell more hype.
Or, in another scenario, the data says 6, an academic says 7, the other academics say the data is racist and bad data, the journalists say there is no data, and yeah
I haven't seen evidence of it
Just wanted to wish everyone a happy Monday. Hope everyone’s day goes well.
use it for whatevs
y'all are looking at truth the wrong way
look no further than armchair experts on reddit for how useless the consensus of the evil is to determine truth
upvotes does not equal soundness
Rather, let us say that truth is something people determine by a Web of Trust of people more wise than them
If you are evil, you will decide using a consensus of the evil; good, consensus of the good
The correct way to arrive at the truth, then, is to ask the wisest person you know, "Who is the wisest person you know?" Then go to that person and ask them the same question, until you arrive at a circle of the wise.
If your hero or their hero or their hero says they are the wisest, or says they don't know, it means you've attached yourself to futility
Why does nobody actually do this? Because they're attached to futility and futility tells them pseudo-intellectualism is the same thing as wisdom. If you really wanted to escape this death day dream you would use this technique to find your way out. But you've grown comfortable and persist in sleeping.
Given "6 degrees of separation", anyone is 6 or fewer people away from the Hidden Ones at any given time.
That was random @Sar
Lol
Re. last night's conversation about trusting secular science not to have an agenda
Ohhhp
Are you saying secular science is bad????