Ribbonfarm being weird as usual. There's centuries of deliberation about what knowledge is, how we can obtain such knowledge and what its value is. Of course,

Ribbonfarm being weird as usual. There's centuries of deliberation about what knowledge is, how we can obtain such knowledge and what its value is. Of course, the author ignores all of that and tries to "reinvent the wheel", badly. Apart from the (true, but not very original) observations that a) you can easily mislead with decontextualised facts, b) trust is necessary in a world where you can't verify everything yourself and c) people are not necessarily persuaded by facts, the article doesn't seem to have much content. He also completely lost me when it seems he's trying to make a case for the existence of UFOs. In an article that describes the importance of trust, I find it a bit ironic that he's basically coming off as a crank. But more importantly, this article has a decidedly anti-science vibe. And while it is important to be careful with science and understand its flaws and limitations, historically it has again and again shown to be the best tool for advancing our understanding of the world.