3 ms·

I was a bit confused by that tangent. By the title of the article I was hoping for a bit of psychological insight on how people react to facts in certain conver

by codyb 6y ago

I was a bit confused by that tangent. By the title of the article I was hoping for a bit of psychological insight on how people react to facts in certain conversations and then suddenly I’m asking “is the author trying to convince me aliens are flying space craft now?” The rest was a bit of a ramble as well. The main tenets of the fact trust, context, and the third one seemed interesting though.

jart 6y ago
Yeah the philosophy is a bit cray. Trust and curation are the key words. Those were smart to point out. Curation is great. Folks only let those they respect most do curation for them. It's about the most esteemed role there is. It makes collective information processing scalable. Omitting details when filtering information through layers of humans is the point. Transparency enables good curators to address any concerns relating to that. For example, programming and mathematics have pretty much already invented the blockchain of facts the author is describing, with things like GNU Make or Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms. The latter is a great way to have more depth if you think normal arithmetic alone isn't factual enough. Some people even use math for theology with theorem provers like coq, but the conclusions they come to only really apply afaik if you believe in certain assumptions like the ability to divide good from non-good.