zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. ButtSp+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-06-04 07:35:32
No one argued that it should be applied as an axiom. You're responding to an argument that wasn't made.

Also, the "gatekeepers of knowledge" have a mostly.....negative past when you look at the sum of recorded human history. Are you arguing that humans today are just way better and far more trustworthy than the rest of history?

replies(2): >>starfa+Ra >>TeMPOr+Pe
2. starfa+Ra[view] [source] 2021-06-04 10:12:01
>>ButtSp+(OP)
>Also, the "gatekeepers of knowledge" have a mostly.....negative past when you look at the sum of recorded human history.

The gatekeepers of knowledge have a past that reflects those that are in power. People that challenge them can be on the right or wrong side of history. Just because they were wrong in the middle ages doesn't mean the gatekeepers of today are wrong. If the gatekeepers can and do apply scientific principles, then logically it is a self-correcting system. This is in theory what we see more or less today (or should at least).

Furthermore, the gatekeeper system is not mutually exclusive to the marketplace of ideas model, as the latter operates on many levels. However, by bringing down the gatekeeper model, it is harder to enforce discussion based on scientific principles, merit and sound arguments. This is the exact reason why we have moderation in almost all forums, and the ones that don't end up as cesspits of people shouting crazy ideas at each other and hence counterproductive places.

Giving everyone a voice doesn't necessarily mean we are bound to give everyone a equal voice in everything. Any weighing is in essence introducing a gatekeeper.

3. TeMPOr+Pe[view] [source] 2021-06-04 11:11:55
>>ButtSp+(OP)
Let's be sure to use the same definition of "gatekeepers" for the past and present knowledge. What I see is, people look at the past examples of politicians and religious leaders telling people what to believe, and try to use those to dismiss opinions of present-day domain specialists. Which is a nasty case of motte-and-bailey fallacy.
replies(1): >>ButtSp+OX2
◧◩
4. ButtSp+OX2[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-06-05 07:08:55
>>TeMPOr+Pe
I'm saying that I think past and present day "specialists" are not as different as we are inclined to think, it's the opposite of a motte-and-bailey position.
[go to top]