No. But I think the wiki model is fundamentally flawed. We need to rethink this. We need to support multiple living hypotheses.
-
-
Replying to @vakibs
epistemic pluralism is often necessary, but it is not intrinsically virtuous
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
As Churchill would say, it is the best of all evils. I hate Churchill but I agree with him on this :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Plinz
I mean the least evil option is democracy with multiple living hypotheses and settling disputes gradually, probably taking forever.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vakibs
Democracy is a tool for legitimizing decisions, not for making good ones
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
I understand this viewpoint. But I don't subscribe to it. I am not yet cynical enough :)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I trust the humans to arrive at the optimal decision if and when they cool down their tempers and consciously try to reduce bias.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vakibs
Do you have peer reviewed research to support that wild hypothesis? :)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
LOL no :) but see this link. I don't want to look for evidence. I presume this, otherwise no point in communication. https://www.singularityweblog.com/human-swarming-and-the-future-of-collective-intelligence/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I find the idea that a cluster of untruths becomes more acceptable if it is shared with a larger number of people revolting
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.