|
> There's no data to back up their alarmist, knee-jerk hand wringing, just like when people thought novels were bad for people [1], or when writing would ruin our memories [2]. Before we knew about germs the "data" suggested that we could bleed out evil tumors to cure illness, or similarly that the sun revolved around the earth. Would you also have labeled such conjecture as alarmist, knee-jerk hand wringing? A lack of data by no means invalidates a hypothesis, on the contrary it encourages further investigation, which leads to scientific progress. I found it ironic that you referenced Socrates as an example of such alarmist claims, because the way I interpreted what he said is that without truly understanding a thing, and instead relying upon rote recitation, one could only continue to repeat the conclusions that others had painstakingly worked toward, but they would not be able to explain why or how, only that it is. You need look no further than the embarrassing circus that was "fact checking" during recent political cycles to see that the concerns Socrates held have in fact come to fruition. Without any evidence except for a tweet hordes of people would confidently and voraciously defend a stance they knew nothing about, often times being completely wrong. SOCRATES: "The same is true of written words. You’d think they were speaking as if they had some understanding, but if you question anything that has been said because you want to learn more, it continues to signify just that very same thing forever. When it has once been written down, every discourse roams about everywhere, reaching indiscriminately those with understanding no less than those who have no business with it, and it doesn’t know to whom it should speak and to whom it should not." |