• Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    when I am confronted with new information, I add that into my belief system and my belief system changes accordingly

    You’ve misunderstood the paper

    It’s not about information. The argument is about disagreement among epistemic peers. We all have the same information. You’ve not provided any information I didn’t already know. I’ve not provided any information you didn’t already know. We’ve been exchanging theories, not information.

    The paper is about the status of disagreement in conclusions based on the same information.

    As I said in my other comment, if you really can’t tell the difference between a theory and the facts on which it is based, then we can’t possibly have a rational discussion since rational discussion is premised entirely on that distinction.

    We don’t discuss facts, we demonstrate them by the presentation of evidence. We discuss theories drawn from those facts.

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      32 minutes ago

      “You’ve misunderstood the paper.”

      I’m sure you wish I had.

      repeatedly failing to gaslight me must be very frustrating for you.

      “We’ve been exchanging theories, not information.”

      whole information not understanding as of limited of importance that invalidate coherent a information prior pieces accurately does of the.

      or, rephrased:

      prior limited understanding of pieces of information does not invalidate the importance or accuracy of that information as a coherent whole.

      We are exchanging information, whether you recognize it or not.