3 ms·
>> Would you rather a lie from an "authoritative" source or a truth from a "wacko" Well, an authoritative source can still be wrong but by definition does not
by ticmasta 7y ago
>> Would you rather a lie from an "authoritative" source or a truth from a "wacko"
Well, an authoritative source can still be wrong but by definition does not lie, while a wacko can get it right occasionally without being truthful.
It kind of feels like you're confusing single-roll probability with cumulative odds; who are you going to bet on over the long term?
- elfexec 7y ago> Well, an authoritative source can still be wrong but by definition does not lie That's the type of thing I imagine someone in north korea saying. By definition does not lie? That's news to me and certainly not true of any "authoritative sources". Every authoritative sources has lied. Even more, every autoritative sources was created specifically to lie. If you think I'm wrong, go read about the creation of these "authoritative sources". Who created them and why? Even the hallowed BBC by definition told lies. Orwell worked for the BBC Eastern Service as a propagandist. It was one of his inspirations for 1984. You might have heard of him. > who are you going to bet on over the long term? Neither - especially when it comes to important issues. As I said the slavish "appeal to authority". It's the basis of all tyranny.