Skip Navigation
me_irl @lemmy.world

me_irl

47 comments
  • This reminds me of that terrific quote from "The Internet's Own Boy": "Aaron [Swartz] thought he could change the world just by explaining the world very clearly to people."
    What he possibly didn't understand was that the people in power are, indeed, perfectly able to understand the facts, but they can and will simply refuse to do so. Or, as Karl Deutsch once put it so succinctly, and I'm paraphrasing here: "Power means not having to listen."

  • I get the whole memeness of it all, but in reality, when you boil it down, no one could ever get all the data and present accurate facts. There are too many variables in life.

    The guy who wrote that in the end is no better than who he tries to argue with (for the reason above).

    As a species we really need to take a step back. Or else the stupid will win and both sides will die thinking they are right.

    • in reality, when you boil it down, no one could ever get all the data and present accurate facts

      If someone says the Earth is round, are we seriously concerned that enough data has not been collected to consider this an accurate fact?

    • Pareto principle, 80% of the effect is determined by 20% of the variables. To get "all of the data" on an open ended question would be fruitless, but you can be reasonably sure of a theory the more evidence corroborates it. Nothing can ever truly be known in a Platonic sense, but the basis of science is in "most likely"s.

      • Same thing here. Now you have some “principle” to back you up claiming you can get “ enough”.

        Like ok. So when they scan you for that rare space disease that causes people to literally blow up, you’d be fine with them ending the scan at 90% right? Right?

        There is no data that isn’t valuable and can sway the ultimate conclusion. None. Only humans have the audacity to think they can cherry pick which lol.

        Bro. Take a hard look at yourself.

47 comments