• seeigel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    You are welcome.

    What’s your opinion if you don’t mind me asking?

    • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      That’s a very uneducated take, and shows that you don’t understand how access to information can be changed, and modeled to elicit certain outcomes.

      • seeigel@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I was arguing that history is not needed when we have access to all experiences so we can ignore history if it is tainted.

        You say that relying on wrong history is dangerous and in the original comment, you say that well cited information is essential.

        There is no real contradiction but you have shown how access to information can be changed, or framed, and modeled to elicit certain outcomes.

        • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Define “tainted”, “wrong”(your word I never used that word) and how the context of history is not required to detect such things.

          Define what we know in a way that doesn’t have a historical basis.

              • seeigel@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                Enlighten me. Science can always be recreated. Which knowledge is needed from history that cannot be created in a scientific way?

                Science was created for a time when knowledge was insecure because it was tainted with superstition.

                  • seeigel@feddit.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    As you noted, I rephrased your words. We are not talking about my axioms. It doesn’t make sense to define tainted if that is not what you mean.

                    Still, your point seems to be that definition of words require history. You can have that form of history. The context is just that history is rewritten and I argue that that can be compensated with science.