Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious
by k_sze on Monday July 20, 2020 @11:50AM
(#23899007)
I believe that there are two things at play here: 1. epistemology (a.k.a. ToK - Theory of Knowledge) and 2. emotion vs rationality.
What the author says should be completely natural to a person who is has studied ToK and who is in a rather rational state of mind.
A person who doesn't understand the problem of ToK would simply be oblivious.
A person who is under the influence of emotion, well, would be unable to help themself from believing whatever fits their emotion.
The ultimate evidence of truthfulness need not be a URL, depending on the claim. Nor is a URL necessarily sufficient. After all, how do you know the ultimate URL of origin is trustworthy? All you can do is to recursively ask yourself "how do you know?", either until you accumulate enough doubt or until the question sounds absurd.
What the author says should be completely natural to a person who is has studied ToK and who is in a rather rational state of mind.
A person who doesn't understand the problem of ToK would simply be oblivious.
A person who is under the influence of emotion, well, would be unable to help themself from believing whatever fits their emotion.
The ultimate evidence of truthfulness need not be a URL, depending on the claim. Nor is a URL necessarily sufficient. After all, how do you know the ultimate URL of origin is trustworthy? All you can do is to recursively ask yourself "how do you know?", either until you accumulate enough doubt or until the question sounds absurd.