One of the oldest questions of philosophy is knowledge. How do we know things? How can we demonstrate true knowledge? Socrates was famous for asking questions until people admitted they had no answer. Plato developed the concept of forms to give structure to the world. Aristotle created the first versions of physics, geology, zoology, and more to understand how the world worked. This is a massive oversimplification, of course, but the challenge people have been facing for literally thousands of years is knowledge versus ignorance.
Despite countless missteps along the way, the result of this process is a deeply nuanced web of theories and methodologies including the scientific method. This means everything is still built on a foundation of assumptions which may be wrong, or at least incorrect in significant aspects. Ideally, everything is open to testing and verification. Good science admits margins of error and areas of uncertainty. The internet seems filled with loudmouths demonstrating exactly the opposite of such rigor.
Grid created in Canva and curves added poorly in Paint3D
This chart is my slapdash attempt at illustrating my point: the red bell curve approximates my categorization of all the stuff masquerading as information, while the inverted blue bell curve approximates the apparent confidence of those spewing that stuff.
Examples:
Maybe this says more about the parts of the internet I explore than it does about the world of news and social media as a whole, but I suspect you can think of many less egregious examples. People prefer to be adamant on matters instead of finding comfort in the unstable uncertainty that I am (paradoxically?) certain surrounds most of what we consider "knowledge." Our facts are only as reliable as the source and our capability to independently verify them. Our personal prejudices and biases skew our perceptions.
I invite you to become more comfortable in that bell curve bubble of uncertainty where you are most free to shift your perception as circumstances change and new information becomes available. People locked into an unsupported belief regarding truth or falsehood have a hard time admitting they could be wrong. As I have written before, I try to keep these lyrics in mind.
Well, I would like to say,
That everything works just one way,
And I'm sorry, but I can't,
'Cause all the answers are not at my command,
So I'll fly with what I know, but I'll step lightly where I land.
—"Something, Somewhere," Invention, by Phil Keaggy, Wes King, and Scott Denté
But, of course, I could be wrong! Am I barking up the wrong tree, harping on and on about something pointless, and generally saying nothing of substance? How much have you really examined your beliefs and the evidence supporting them? Should I just ask a chatbot to write this sort of thing in the future for your votebot to support? Chime in with a comment!
If you're not on Hive yet, I invite you to join through PeakD. If you use my referral link, I'll even delegate some Hive Power to help you get started.
