You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why MIT's Orwellian "Largest-Ever Study of Fake News" Is Nonsense.
Is language enough? That is attacked so much now. Must we also be vigilant to think and express things freely which don't necessarily adhere to status quo? How much can these large propaganda silos care what it is they are pumping out, point is they are concerned with 'how' people respond. My theory is to approach things from a seven-point perspective: mathematical, historical, scientific, ethical, philsophical, religious, and occult. What levels of varying objective reliability do these frameworks provide in the scope of topics, particular to those distributors who want me to think something, not enable me to creatively wonder about something.
Interesting approach and it's an exercise that definitely offers you a greater perspective. However, I believe that categorizing itself is limiting, because adhering to categories offers a false sense of a global / objective perspective and creates a kind of a middle ground fallacy. These seven categories were picked by you and were influenced by your own personal experiences, beliefs and biases. For example, another person might never have picked "religious" and "occult" or even "ethical" since they are disciplines that depend on personal belief or opinion versus proven facts, but they might have picked "logic" or "semantics" or "evolutionary biology" or "anthropology" or "linguistics" and so on. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the categories themselves are constraining you inside your own biases, because they force you to choose which scope you believe is more important to examine things from. It's best to just be open and not categorize approaches. Just try to think critically and combine sources and knowledge.