[lacy_tinpot]

I would argue you're doing it right now.

By being skeptical of the answers, testing the answers, corroborating with other sources, etc.

This isn't new. This is literally how we've been exploring this knowledge game for thousands of years.

[squigz]

I would argue this isn't a fair comparison. There's a big difference between a fairly open-ended discussion about a topic both parties are at least somewhat familiar with, and someone trying to learn a new subject.

[lacy_tinpot]

All knowledge is open ended...

I bet when you're learning a new subject you do the same exact thing.

[squigz]

When learning from a source like a textbook, docs, or being instructed by a person, I do not expect the source of truth to lie to me, and verify everything they tell me.

[ares623]

This. When you're reading a reputable textbook, you're not thinking all the time "wait is this true?". You trust the author to be correct and truthful.

Imagine being handed a textbook with a warning in the first page "10% of the facts here are made up (including this one). Good luck!"

[a96]

I always assume textbooks are opinionated and full of errors. I learned that to be true at a very young age. Sometimes that assumption turns out to be mostly wrong, though, and those books are rare treasures. Most schoolbooks in particular are pretty terrible.

[lacy_tinpot]

Did we all just collectively forgot basic literacy?

You as the reader when you're reading anything are supposed to verify claims the author is making.

You never expect anything to be sources of truth.

That's why every textbooks either cites the sources or proves their work.

Very rarely do you have any textbook that's just a list of facts out of thin air. I don't think I've seen a single textbook, even bad ones, do this. They always cite their claims, or they show the logical steps to prove or justify a claim. Good textbooks make it easy to follow and clearly show their steps for the convenience of their readers.

Any good textbook seriously considers both the historic literature on their subject, presents the context of that literature, and shows some kind of proof of work that synthesizes all of that to support their claim.

This is always the case. This is how basic academic writing is done.

And it is the job of the reader to follow those citations, and to verify the claims. That's literally how our academic system works.

It's basic literacy.

[tremon]

You have a very funny definition of "basic literacy". This is (an example of) the definition most of the English-speaking world uses: https://americanenglishdoctor.com/l-2-basic-literacy/

> Know how to find information in the old technology called “books"

> Can think critically about statements made in such different contexts as advertising, entertainment, news reporting, and books written in an earlier century.

So, before indulging this any further, do you mind citing your source for the definition of "basic literacy" that includes the claim "never expect anything to be sources of truth"?

[squigz]

> And it is the job of the reader to follow those citations, and to verify the claims.

How do you verify the claims? Replicate every piece of research cited?