As someone who remembers the days before the internet, that’s 1000x better than our method of just believing whoever seemed the most sure. We weren’t running down to the library 10 times a day to find quality sources for information, we just didn’t know things. When did that person die? Who knows. Is it safe to mix these chemicals? Try it and see.
Old wives tales and superstition were responsible for at least 60% of all decision making.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I had someone yesterday claim I was wrong about a pretty complicated scientific thing but they were vague and didn’t say why I was wrong.
I have a background in that topic, so it only took a second to find a scientific study to back me up…
They immediately replied with an article that had nothing to do with what anyone was talking about, and when I told them that, they refused to explain what was relevant, called me rude, and blocked me.
Their mind was made up, and they just picked the first result off whatever they googled and assumed it backed them up.
Idiots “doing their own research” rarely works out well, they’re not trying to learn anything, just win an argument they don’t understand
user224@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
By the way, I’ve seen Google displaying halucinated AI written articles as the main, highlited result.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yep, ask Google something like “water causes covid” and you’ll likely get some idiot saying water causing COVID because that matches your search.
AceBonobo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Do you happen to remember the search query? This is very interesting
pixxelkick@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This is perpetuated by some shitty internet personalities too.
“You will NEVER believe it, this study peer reviewed paper TOTALY DEBUNKS !!!”
joel_feila@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Sounds about right Glares in existential horror at flat earthers
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
That’s the problem.
We humans have goals, as in “satisfaction from winning”, or as in “solace from reaching some idea the correct way so it’d likely be true”.
Theirs is not to be correct, it’s to defeat you, to win, to dominate etc.
A conversation where your counterpart see themselves as your opponent just should end once you see that. Also it would be fair to inform them that this is ape behavior, but sometimes unwise sadly.
Also the approach that an argument as in “opposition to each other” leads to truth is more or less the same thing as dialectics. And dialectics do not have any scientific value (we are not pursuing studies of “scientific communism” here).