How come no one ever talks about how the you can't really trust any sources? And if you can't trust sources, then information is subjective. I think it's pretty obvious that the higher the stakes, the more incentive to fake information. So politics and religion are the 2 highest stakes things in the world and it seems to me that none of the information surrounding research can be trusted.

Anything you or I believe is but a mishmash of subjective opinions, biased studies, biased research, and confirmation bias. Anyone who says otherwise is not being intellectually honest.

>no, erm, actually, my information is correct, and yours if wrong.

sure little buddy.

I'm a right-wing chud btw. I'm not an "enlightened centrist" trying to convert you to centrism. I'm trying to say that opinions and facts are a funny thing. And everyone thinks they are correct.

yeah and

>>17826488
stupid retard. Can't come up with a conclusion on your own?

>>17826488
How about that information cannot be trusted how about that? Is that profound enough for you? Anons all the fucking time in these stupid fucking threads post """sources""" which """prove"""" their point but are then immediately shot down by someone who is predisposed to disagree with them.

All discourse is bullshit. And you think that's not profound????

>>17826488
You stupid fucking retard NPC without 2 brains cells to rub together. You think "might makes right" is not profound? You think the fact that we sit on these forums like a bunch of gossipy women instead of going outside and dying for our beliefs like real men isn't fucking profound?

Fuck you.

there are degrees of trust that you can have. ultimately you can't even guarantee your senses are giving you an appropriate image of reality 100% of the time, but 99% is usually fine enough. most sources of information are good enough and so we don't try to reach the impossible 100%.

>>17826482 (OP)
>How come no one ever talks about how the you can't really trust any sources?
the me never ever trusted the my sources.

>>17826482 (OP)
yes, it only gets worse the more you read them.

>>17826517
This, it's kind of like being a bottom feeder and looking for food by sifting through the sand. Every bit of information has to be checked against the source's trust level and your own preexisting information. Sometimes you swallow sand, but most of the time you can tell the difference.

>>17826482 (OP)
Some sources and information being incorrect, biased or malicious does not mean that all sources and information are incorrect, biased or malicious. Are you completely unfamiliar with the concept of trustworthiness? Whether its journalists, researchers or the institutions they work for the quality and consistency of their work builds up a reputation over time. The modern scientific method is also based on peer review and replicability so that the results can be verified and consistently produced, and there is also an idea that stronger claims require stronger evidence.

>>17826482 (OP)
There are entire fields of philosophy dedicated to the subject, little brainlet boi

>>17826482 (OP)
I think you have to trust your instincts and your own judgement, but there's a lot of extreme subjectivism in the world (very common nowadays) where people think they can just make up their world by telling the right stories about it. I think that's delusional.

>>17826482 (OP)
Politics is Treachery
Religion is Brainwashing

>>17826482 (OP)
if you're familiar enough with a subject you can generally sniff out what's bullshit and what isn't when it comes to academic works

You can trust official sources and science, sorry chuddie. You don't trust them because they contradict your retarded ideas about the world.

It's the main reason why your kind went on this anti-scientific crusade with your stupid memes and twitter propaganda.

>>17826482 (OP)
>How come no one ever talks about how the you can't really trust any sources? And if you can't trust sources, then information is subjective. I think it's pretty obvious that the higher the stakes, the more incentive to fake information. So politics and religion are the 2 highest stakes things in the world and it seems to me that none of the information surrounding research can be trusted.
That's basically the point of the field of history: examining and weighing evidence in history to determine the closest truth and narrative. Going through basically any academic history book should acknowledge conflict on contentious points and establish why their description is correct as well as note their sources and name faults with them. Studying Rome is rife with biased source problems, for instance.
BUT many arguments are often dismissed due to ideological causes that are political and religious reasons in the more popular sphere. Most people who study history seriously will be able acknowledge and grapple with complexities in the past despite their own political biases.

>>17826482 (OP)
>how come no one talks about the thing we learn in historiography 101 and that every historian mentions whenever they discuss their sources
anon, you don't actually read anything except pop history, do you?

>>17826482 (OP)
>So politics and religion are the 2 highest stakes things in the world and it seems to me that none of the information surrounding research can be trusted.
I think you're going in the right direction, but you're turning a valuable insight into a convenient over-simplification. And one word in this greentext is to blame.
>none
You would distrust Kamala Harris and Edward Snowden the same way (100%)? You would distrust the warmongering Moscow Patriarch and a persecuted monk sharing his mystical experience the same way? You have to ask yourself whether the conclusion you are drawing is convenient for you. And if it is, chances are very good that you are misleading yourself. And it's the easiest to mislad yourself when the insight you're working with is actually good - such as the political/religious incentive to fake information.

>information is subjective
>Anything you or I believe is but a mishmash ...
Belief and information are on different levels. You can trust information here and there, you just cannot trust that you have collected all the necessary datapoints to form a coherent belief. And that is fine. Your cognition isn't racing towards some correctness finish line, it is a process through which you participate with your surroundings. You don't participate with everything ever so there is no need to figure out everything ever. You don't participate in your activities with your entire soul, might and body so there is no need to figure out each activity to the core.

As far as I remember, subjectivism was "defeated" by phenomenology in the acedemic field, so I say milk this subjectivist insight for all it has, but not a drop more.

>>17826482 (OP)
Why do chuds think that being selfish is virtuous, and how exactly is this supposed to lead to anything good? There's a reason you had to post ai slop.

>>17826482 (OP)
>I'm a retard btw
ftfy chuddie
Just because the facts don't align with your persecution-complex of an infants worldview doesn't mean they're fake, retard

>>17827150
It's what no-sex and being a failure in life does to a mfer

>>17826482 (OP)
I mean isn’t the point of studying humanities so that you can decide or at least assay such informations?

>>17826482 (OP)
>I'm trying to say that opinions and facts are a funny thing. And everyone thinks they are correct.
holy shit, anon!
what an englightened perspective you have!
this is completely new information to me and probably to the smartest and most learned members of our species
please elaborate
publish a book