> We're watching modern disinformation tear society apart at the seams
If this is what you call being torn apart at the seams, I can’t imagine what you’d make of most of the past few centuries of human history.
> somehow the "information age" has been entirely corrupted
You legitimately believe the “Information Age” has been entirely corrupted?
If anything, your rant convinces me that you’re the victim of a great deal of targeted disinformation.
> you have to go make some absurd argument that "science will always win"
No, I made the argument that science is dispassionate and stands on its own.
It does not require censorship or appeals to authority to “win”.
Its conclusions can be tested using empiricism and logical reasoning. If they cannot, or if subjecting results to review is not permitted, it’s not science.
> > We're watching modern disinformation tear society apart at the seams
> If this is what you call being torn apart at the seams, I can’t imagine what you’d make of most of the past few centuries of human history.
Your counterargument to my point is just as stupid as your last one. "Oh, you think society is going backwards? Imagine if you lived even further in the past, it would be even worse!!"
Have you watched the news recently? Seen what is happening in the USA and across the world with right-wing extremism and authoritarianism uprisings? Elites have coopted connectivity in order to control massive amounts of the populace through extensive propaganda networks. The world was on a genuine upswing for a long time, and now religious fanaticism is tearing down those pillars of progress. That's pretty thoroughly corrupted
> If anything, your rant convinces me that you’re the victim of a great deal of targeted disinformation.
This doesn't even mean anything, if you had a point for every trite aphorism you spew you might be interesting to talk to
> I made the argument that science is dispassionate
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the human populace is largely forgoing the construct in favor of propagandized pop culture. Which is why I said you are out here flapping your fingers in an entirely pointless, dissatisfying fashion, designed only to make yourself smile at how pretty a picture your words paint, conversation be damned
Frankly, I think your rants prove my point about the religious nature of “sciencism” better than anything else I could possibly say in reply, and so I’ll take my leave here.
If this is what you call being torn apart at the seams, I can’t imagine what you’d make of most of the past few centuries of human history.
> somehow the "information age" has been entirely corrupted
You legitimately believe the “Information Age” has been entirely corrupted?
If anything, your rant convinces me that you’re the victim of a great deal of targeted disinformation.
> you have to go make some absurd argument that "science will always win"
No, I made the argument that science is dispassionate and stands on its own.
It does not require censorship or appeals to authority to “win”.
Its conclusions can be tested using empiricism and logical reasoning. If they cannot, or if subjecting results to review is not permitted, it’s not science.