Look into situations yourself. Like if someone says X person did Y, you can look and see if that’s true. There are plenty of face checking sites that list sources for you to verify information independently. Like when Trump said KH wants to raise retirement age, you can look and see she’s never said that or purposed that.
Also legal action on a topic is a good indicator as there has been proceedings done so the outcome can be more trusted.
But as a general rule of thumb I find the side that bans books and education, calls any criticism a lie, and has had a track record of lying on the record countless times as the less trustworthy side.
Where am I gonna look? I personally have a conviction for something I didn’t do because the legal process is lazy and malicious, so I won’t be trusting that either. Who am I to believe any digital story?
You’re not helpless to look up facts. If you’re asking where to look go to the source. For the example I mentioned you can look at her platform. Your stance seems to be very close to the “how can we know anything” which is often pushed as a mindset when a group of bad actors calls everything into question to avoid accountability. Truths can be known, things can be confirmed.
As for court, I said it’s more trustworthy, but not absolute by any means. It’s controlled by people, and people are not infallible.
Names are arbitrary and I think the officiation of my name is only useful for financial purposes. I can read and type for sure, but who is to decide that the way I’m doing it is correct? Besides, these are working knowledge rather than truth of the matter. We can work with electricity without knowing it’s full nature. Apparently electricity is incredibly weird.
You can clearly understand the concepts I’m conveying. We’re having a conversation. Acting like we can’t know anything is silly.
Yes, we can use things without knowing how they work, but even then we know how to use it. You know how to type to express yourself, and clearly you’re doing it right because I can read it. I feel like this is trying to be existential but is just very 13 year old “deep thoughts”.
What can a computer know? Only what signals you feed it. Whether those signals are true or not can’t really be determined. Doesn’t matter if you send a million of the same thing. Labeled as “peer review”. There is no determining what is the certain truth of something. It’s the reason we have English prime.
Everyone can say stuff. How am I to know which stuff said is true?
Look into situations yourself. Like if someone says X person did Y, you can look and see if that’s true. There are plenty of face checking sites that list sources for you to verify information independently. Like when Trump said KH wants to raise retirement age, you can look and see she’s never said that or purposed that.
Also legal action on a topic is a good indicator as there has been proceedings done so the outcome can be more trusted.
But as a general rule of thumb I find the side that bans books and education, calls any criticism a lie, and has had a track record of lying on the record countless times as the less trustworthy side.
Where am I gonna look? I personally have a conviction for something I didn’t do because the legal process is lazy and malicious, so I won’t be trusting that either. Who am I to believe any digital story?
You’re not helpless to look up facts. If you’re asking where to look go to the source. For the example I mentioned you can look at her platform. Your stance seems to be very close to the “how can we know anything” which is often pushed as a mindset when a group of bad actors calls everything into question to avoid accountability. Truths can be known, things can be confirmed.
As for court, I said it’s more trustworthy, but not absolute by any means. It’s controlled by people, and people are not infallible.
Nothing is knowable. The map is not the territory and mappers have motivations.
So you don’t know your own name, how to read or type? Impressive.
Names are arbitrary and I think the officiation of my name is only useful for financial purposes. I can read and type for sure, but who is to decide that the way I’m doing it is correct? Besides, these are working knowledge rather than truth of the matter. We can work with electricity without knowing it’s full nature. Apparently electricity is incredibly weird.
You can clearly understand the concepts I’m conveying. We’re having a conversation. Acting like we can’t know anything is silly.
Yes, we can use things without knowing how they work, but even then we know how to use it. You know how to type to express yourself, and clearly you’re doing it right because I can read it. I feel like this is trying to be existential but is just very 13 year old “deep thoughts”.
What can a computer know? Only what signals you feed it. Whether those signals are true or not can’t really be determined. Doesn’t matter if you send a million of the same thing. Labeled as “peer review”. There is no determining what is the certain truth of something. It’s the reason we have English prime.