"@grok is this true?"
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (21)
sorted by:
This really isn't that true.
Every library, and college campus, have access to dozens of reference sources like encyclopedias, and encyclopedias and many separate topics.
It's not as easy or as fast, but it could have easily been done.
However, earlier eras required trust and competence within most of these reference materials, and many of them were worthy of that trust.
Yes, now you have access to the vast sum of human knowledge, but the problem is that you've got "credible sources" spreading open disinformation that is provably false. There is no equivalent to "Herd Immunity is Genocide" outside of the Soviet Union's period of Lysenkoism.
Yeah you reminded me of being at university in 2004-2008.
Even back then we werent allowed to use the internet as source, it wasnt considered reliable. Instead we still had to go our schools library where they had a small selection of studies and things that schools pay to have access to. That was basically the only sources we were allowed to reference. Trying to quote wikipidiea would have been a huge no no. Im willing to bet its not like that today.
Unfortunately, no, it's not like that anymore. They've been allowing the use of wikipedia for years. That's fucking wild because Wikipedia refuses to use primary source evidence, and effectively operates as a tertiary source at best.
Back in your day, the universities basically enforced the old methodology of research, and it's a huge problem that we can't trust these institutions, but they've absolutely raped their own credibility to death.
When academic journals rescind a publication, it's a huge deal. The one linking vaccines to autism was done because it was a clear problem with the study, and the actual anti-vaxxers were harping on it. But when they rescinded the publication on the effectiveness of Ivermectin, because it was true but you don't like who's citing it... then you've got a major ethical crisis on your hands.
Even the dictionaries can't be trusted. Merriam Webster changed the definition of "Sexual Preference" to assert that it was a homophobic slur solely because Mazie Hirono claimed it was despite all evidence to the contrary. They never gave any warning for the definition change, and they never sought evidence for it. They just changed the definition officially within hours of it being said. Worse, they still define it as offensive.
How are we, as a society, capable of working with institutions of formal knowledge, when those institutions are so corrupt that they are prepared to change the English language itself in order to support the idiotic and un-evidenced claims of middling politicians at the drop of a hat; then stick to that lie for decades in spite of observable reality.