I’m pointing out a degradation of knowledge and exploring the point at which it is considered false.
For example : a man examines a phenomenon, performs a complex experiment relating to it. Comes up with a nice model. Communicates the model to you. You understand the model but your understanding of the actual phenomenon, maybe less so. So when you discuss the phenomenon with your friends, refer to the model, there’s a bit of bs there.
And another example : A blind man is told that the sky is blue. But his understanding of that is not like the understanding of one who actually observed the blue of the sky, obviously.
I think if you took this to a different community and posted it more straightforward you would receive better responses. Maybe a science or a philosophy community. No stupid questions is more for questions like “will drinking small amounts of bleach whiten my teeth?”
Can you know something if it’s false? Is that the question?
I’m pointing out a degradation of knowledge and exploring the point at which it is considered false.
For example : a man examines a phenomenon, performs a complex experiment relating to it. Comes up with a nice model. Communicates the model to you. You understand the model but your understanding of the actual phenomenon, maybe less so. So when you discuss the phenomenon with your friends, refer to the model, there’s a bit of bs there.
And another example : A blind man is told that the sky is blue. But his understanding of that is not like the understanding of one who actually observed the blue of the sky, obviously.
Call it what, an unavoidable corruption?
I think if you took this to a different community and posted it more straightforward you would receive better responses. Maybe a science or a philosophy community. No stupid questions is more for questions like “will drinking small amounts of bleach whiten my teeth?”