How Do We Judge Reliability? - Gracie | Street Epistemology
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- Gracie and David open up a Can of Words and use Street Epistemology to explore Gracie's views on "reliable" and "genuine" during the Sound Epistemology Adventure Tour. To support the tour, donate here:
venmo.com/u/te...
paypal.me/sound...
Street Epistemology is a civil way to explore the quality of one’s reasoning.
Street Epistemology is also a movement that encourages our communities to engage in this exercise with each other and with ourselves.
Music - @djbrownnote and Tracy Sayler (guitar)
- LINKS -
Link Tree -
linktr.ee/soun...
Sound Epistemology TH-cam Channel -
/ soundepistemology
Sound Epistemology Facebook Group -
www.facebook.c...
Sound Epistemology Twitter -
/ sndepistemology
Sound Epistemology Instagram -
/ sound_epistemology
Free Street Epistemology Course -
www.navigating...
The Official Street Epistemology
TH-cam Channel -
/ streetepistemology
Street Epistemology Website -
streetepistemo...
Street Epistemology Discord -
/ discord
Street Epistemology Survey -
se-survey.web....
Street Epistemology Reddit -
/ streetepistemology
Recovering From Religion -
www.recovering...
The Secular Therapy Project -
www.secularthe...
The Clergy Project -
clergyproject....
Thanks so much for watching! Please consider making a donation to keep the current SE tour going:
venmo.com/u/tex21122002
(Last four: 0457)
PayPal: paypal.me/soundepistemology
I think you just created a seismic moment in this person's journey. Well done.
Great conversation. Thanks Gracie! Thanks David!
I worry I could never do SE. I'm shouting to my screen "why don't you call it OPINION? OPINION!" I've never needed to say "true for me" or "subjective truth". Using subjective truth in my opinion just muddles terminology and leads to all kinds of silliness. How would we even do science if truth would be subjective?
Appreciate good questions tho
Right, I think "subjective truth" is oxymoronic.
One thing I don’t understand with “it’s going to be ok”. Why give insincere comfort when there are other good options? Like “I don’t know how we get through this but I’m with you the whole time” (if that’s an option). I’ve never said and would never say “it’s going to be ok” because I’d consider that platitude, lying. Even if it will, I can’t know that.
Empty promises are the worst
Damn, some really good reflection here, and on the most important topic of all : reality. I also liked that she wanted to go for another round.
Ford Transit Connect for the win! Payment plans to suit any budget... 😏👍🏆💯
Dibs!
Wikipedia is a tool. A knife is a tool. You can rely on Wikipedia to give you information. You can rely on a knife to cut things when you use it (we are assuming it is sharp and all other traits are typical of a knife that is a reliable cutting tool). You can also cut yourself using a knife poorly. Similarly, you can use Wikipedia poorly, and find bad information. With a knife, it's fairly apparent what "using it badly" might entail. Simply, it can be defined as using it in a way that presents a danger to the user via its cutting edge. So, we know something about the knife. It has cutting edge that is dangerous if it is used improperly. Similarly, we know something about Wikipedia, it has bad information (in some places) that is dangerous if *it* (Wikipedia) is used improperly. So, we can say that Wikipedia is a tool with a proper use, but also with an improper use. What are the specifics of its improper use? Well, Wikipedia has sources, those can help. Wikipedia also exists alongside other media that can be found to corroborate what we find on it. If we do not use these, as well as filtering the information we find through a sieve of reason to sift out logical fallacies, then we are using it improperly, and that is where it's danger may lie. I find this to be true of most information that a person can find or hear anywhere. In this way, Wikipedia isn't just not uniquely flawed, it is in fact flawed in the rather mundane way that all other ways you can find information may be. There are varying levels of trust that can be allotted to a source of information based on its previous information that has held up to scrutiny, as well as scrutinizing new pieces of evidence it may provide. I choose to trust science as heuristic, since I cannot possibly observe or perform every possible test of information that can be done, so I find the best thing that is available: the tests others have done and recorded the results of. I used the word science, because the practice of it appears to be the best possible way of at least ruling out falsifiable things, leaving behind a domain of what must be true. Within that domain is where rigorous theory lies, and this method can be applied to all falsifiable knowledge, not just that which is traditionally lumped in with the customary idea of science. I said all that to say this: Wikipedia is a fantastic source of information, but it is a shortcut, and you can get lost taking shortcuts. Remember: if you use a knife without care, you may cut yourself shortly.