Conversation

When you hear "FACTS," think "TRUSTED THIRD PARTY." (why facts are NOT the future of epistemology, no matter how blockchain-based or open-source you make them) 1/14
3
80
Facts don’t exist in nature. You need an instrument to measure them. Maybe it’s your eyesΒ β€” maybe it’s a Volkswagen omission meter. You have to trust some instrument to give you information, and all the people between you and it in the information supply-chain. 2/14
2
32
"Chainlink!" I hear you scream. Let's assume Chainlink provides trustless data, from a variety of sensors around the world. What if a suspicion arises that Russia manipulates all sensors simultaneously with satellite-based lasers, and millions stop trusting them? 3/14
1
14
People who don't want to accept your conclusions will always find ways to avoid accepting your premises. As the last 20 years have taught us, saying "But they're wrong!" over and over is not an adequate remedy. Why is this? 4/14
1
19
The center of epistemology lives in the realm of *wanting.* Not of thinking. We are not thinking machines, with desires. We are *wanting machines, with thoughts.* 5/14
2
41
The epistemic element that honors the "wanting" in us is *trust* β€” to trust, we can give our assent or dissent. "Trust" as the fulcrum of public epistemology treats human beings as we are, instead of as we imagine ourselves to be. 6/14
1
16
Personal judgment depends on: - Trusting the source - Wanting the truth There is no such thing as "undeniable evidence." Any evidence can be denied if it's sufficiently unwanted. 8/14
2
47