"Our analysis then reveals that polarized teams—those consisting of a balanced set of politically diverse editors—create articles of higher quality than politically homogeneous teams. The effect appears most strongly in Wikipedia’s Political articles..."https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/943507941629476869 …
No, if there is no truth then there is no point in arguing about anything. There is no way to evaluate an argument without truth. So we ASSUME that some axioms are true, and from those axioms derive truth. These axioms make up materialism, as 99% of the world subscribes to it.
-
-
Why are you yelling at a scarecrow?
-
"We can then save ourselves trouble of testing and debating" Here you are implying that because there is no truth, that testing and debating are necessary. That if truth exists and can be proven to exist that those are no longer necessary. I respond to that. What is the strawman?
-
Ran out of room, you do it again here: "Guess we'll have to continue to argue about stuff" Again, where is the strawman? I'm just responding to claims you made.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
*. As 99% of the world subscribes to it, we base our colloquial definition of truth on materialism. So when I say we presume some things are true, we are presuming they are materially true. Truths (materially true truths) may be inconvenient for certain ideologies. Suppress them.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.