3 ms·
I'd argue it's the opposite. We've relied too much on trust and promises and not enough on rigor and exactness. Most people aren't given facts, constraints and
by Dracophoenix 6y ago
I'd argue it's the opposite. We've relied too much on trust and promises and not enough on rigor and exactness. Most people aren't given facts, constraints and limitations until it's too late, if ever. What they're given are viewpoints with selective evidence and glaring omissions. It's remained a unsolved since the beginning of humanity. A solution to this problem is a rigorous self-proving system that wouldn't need one to convince another of the facts.
- simias 6y agoI don't want to live in a trustless society. What you describe sounds like a totalitarian dystopia to me. I want escape hatches. I want plausible deniability. Facts in a vacuum are useless and can be used to propel all sorts of narratives. Facts without framing and contextualization aren't worth much. You can manipulate easily without technically lying, just by cherry picking facts that suit your agenda. You need some amount of trust and solidarity if you want to live in a healthy society.