4 ms·
> kills many inaccurate ideological positions that we inherited. It doesn't, which is part of the point the OP is making. And now my point, it's ok that these
by paganel 1y ago
> kills many inaccurate ideological positions that we inherited.
It doesn't, which is part of the point the OP is making. And now my point, it's ok that these pseudo-scientific "revelations" don't kill those "inaccurate ideological positions", because that's the whole point of human free will, there's no "accurate ideological position" when it comes to the day-to-day life, or to societal life in general.
- intended 1y agoI have used them for moderation and policy, back when I used to moderate. I retired ideological beliefs in favor of reality when I went and found the data and research. Stating “it doesn’t”, does not convert an opinion into fact. That said, I suspect you haven’t read the paper and are arguing from the headline. My intuition is that you will find the research complimentary to your ideas, and not in opposition.
- paganel 1y ago> That said, I suspect you haven’t read the paper and are arguing from the headline. You're correct on that, as I find that applying the word "science", or "research", or "paper", to the day-to-day life, like to news article in this case, is not science per se, and unfortunately I don't have time to lose on drivel that paints itself as science (but which it is not science, as I mentioned above).