GrumpyRabbit on Nostr: _President-elect Trump Declares War on Censorship-Industrial Complex_ Outlines ...
_President-elect Trump Declares War on Censorship-Industrial Complex_
Outlines sweeping plan "to shatter the left wing censorship regime."
When the debate is lost, censorship, de-platforming, cancelling, the genetic fallacy, ridicule, slander and/or ad-hominem become the tools of the loser.
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." ~ Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia," 1782
A "free society" without free and open debate is like "science" without independent peer review by any reasonably-competent person who wishes to do so: It turns into a self-reinforcing echo-chamber where narrative enforcement masquerades as legitimate "fact checking."
The difference between a 'fact' and an 'opinion' is simply one of the level of confidence, the probability that the assertion that embodies the 'fact' or 'opinion' is true. It's NOT a difference of kind. And more importantly, it's only an ESTIMATION of the level of confidence, of the probability of truth. And even more importantly, that estimation is subjective. Were it not, it would never be the case that different analysts would have differing estimates, and so disagree on what is, and is not, a "fact."
And then there's the fact that the history of science is all about the falsification of prevailing, mainstream, consensus paradigms. See, for example, Thomas Kuhn's masterwork, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
And then there's the fact that "scientific facts" are all based on 'proof by induction.' And Hume proved that proof by induction cannot result in an absolute proof, only in a probability of truth that's intrinsically less than 100%, even if it asymptotically approaches absolute certainty.
To equate "doesn't align with our opinion" with "misinformation" is the very definition of pseudo-science and propaganda. And it's the direct opposite of "a free and open society."
Had such a policy of censoring or shadow-banning opinions critical of mainstream thought been in force even just 30 years ago, significant mainstream-consensus policies would now be forever stuck on stances that the mainstream itself now considers false.
Those of you who think such suppression of contrary opinions is the right policy need to read Thomas Kuhn's masterwork, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Reading that WILL change your mind, quite emphatically. It was required reading when I was in college in the 1970s. Don't know whether it still is, but I'm guessing it isn't.
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/president-elect-trump-declares-war
Outlines sweeping plan "to shatter the left wing censorship regime."
When the debate is lost, censorship, de-platforming, cancelling, the genetic fallacy, ridicule, slander and/or ad-hominem become the tools of the loser.
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." ~ Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia," 1782
A "free society" without free and open debate is like "science" without independent peer review by any reasonably-competent person who wishes to do so: It turns into a self-reinforcing echo-chamber where narrative enforcement masquerades as legitimate "fact checking."
The difference between a 'fact' and an 'opinion' is simply one of the level of confidence, the probability that the assertion that embodies the 'fact' or 'opinion' is true. It's NOT a difference of kind. And more importantly, it's only an ESTIMATION of the level of confidence, of the probability of truth. And even more importantly, that estimation is subjective. Were it not, it would never be the case that different analysts would have differing estimates, and so disagree on what is, and is not, a "fact."
And then there's the fact that the history of science is all about the falsification of prevailing, mainstream, consensus paradigms. See, for example, Thomas Kuhn's masterwork, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
And then there's the fact that "scientific facts" are all based on 'proof by induction.' And Hume proved that proof by induction cannot result in an absolute proof, only in a probability of truth that's intrinsically less than 100%, even if it asymptotically approaches absolute certainty.
To equate "doesn't align with our opinion" with "misinformation" is the very definition of pseudo-science and propaganda. And it's the direct opposite of "a free and open society."
Had such a policy of censoring or shadow-banning opinions critical of mainstream thought been in force even just 30 years ago, significant mainstream-consensus policies would now be forever stuck on stances that the mainstream itself now considers false.
Those of you who think such suppression of contrary opinions is the right policy need to read Thomas Kuhn's masterwork, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Reading that WILL change your mind, quite emphatically. It was required reading when I was in college in the 1970s. Don't know whether it still is, but I'm guessing it isn't.
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/president-elect-trump-declares-war