• bane_killgrind@slrpnk.netEnglish
        0·
        2 days ago

        That’s a very uneducated take, and shows that you don’t understand how access to information can be changed, and modeled to elicit certain outcomes.

        • seeigel@feddit.orgEnglish
          0·
          2 days ago

          I was arguing that history is not needed when we have access to all experiences so we can ignore history if it is tainted.

          You say that relying on wrong history is dangerous and in the original comment, you say that well cited information is essential.

          There is no real contradiction but you have shown how access to information can be changed, or framed, and modeled to elicit certain outcomes.

          • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.netEnglish
            0·
            2 days ago

            Define “tainted”, “wrong”(your word I never used that word) and how the context of history is not required to detect such things.

            Define what we know in a way that doesn’t have a historical basis.

                • seeigel@feddit.orgEnglish
                  0·
                  1 day ago

                  Enlighten me. Science can always be recreated. Which knowledge is needed from history that cannot be created in a scientific way?

                  Science was created for a time when knowledge was insecure because it was tainted with superstition.