As you noted, I rephrased your words. We are not talking about my axioms. It doesn’t make sense to define tainted if that is not what you mean.
Still, your point seems to be that definition of words require history. You can have that form of history. The context is just that history is rewritten and I argue that that can be compensated with science.
Can? How? Go read any intro book on epistemology. You are talking out of your ass and it’s disrespectful to everyone that actually takes knowledge and human progress seriously.
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.
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.
How does science know if something is true, with experiments.
You apparently have no idea
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.
Nah. Define your axioms like I said. If you won’t, you can’t.
As you noted, I rephrased your words. We are not talking about my axioms. It doesn’t make sense to define tainted if that is not what you mean.
Still, your point seems to be that definition of words require history. You can have that form of history. The context is just that history is rewritten and I argue that that can be compensated with science.
Can? How? Go read any intro book on epistemology. You are talking out of your ass and it’s disrespectful to everyone that actually takes knowledge and human progress seriously.