3 ms·
Get into the history of science, and it will become apparent that getting at the "truth" is one hell of an uphill climb. Whether it was The Church vs Galileo,
by jstewartmobile 7y ago
Get into the history of science, and it will become apparent that getting at the "truth" is one hell of an uphill climb. Whether it was The Church vs Galileo, or Keys vs Yudkin, this is an area where "authorities" have failed greatly and frequently, and honest open debate remains the most effective tool we have--albeit an imperfect one.
To appoint fucking salary-persons as the "facts" police--people more invested in steady paychecks and institutional authority rather than the study of the thing itself--will only yield error, confusion, and tyranny.
- badrabbit 7y agoDid you even read what I said? Does science itself not use academic journals ans peer review in it's authority model? The whole "church" vs Galileo thing was hugely misportrayed in popular culture. Most people believed him but there was corruption like you said where those in power needed him gone. So we are not trying to find a magical source of truth to all things here! We are simply translating existing societal authority models to the internet. If you think there is a unifyig authority model (which i doubt you do) the production (the internet) is not where you test it out right? The idea is not prevent another death of another galileo but to prevent death of magelan,columbus ,newton,einstein,etc.... as well. Each society in it's own way determines what authority models are authoritative over domains. In science you have peer review, in law enforcement you "salary men" as you called them, in finance you have credit reporting companies (which I dislike),etc... while you are trying to replace all that with a one-size-fits-all society is being torn apart!