You are only crazy if you understand those two terms - which are products of whichever group is projecting their insanity at any time (to be changed at their whim at another time!)
I would disagree a little :). If one understands that MI is only true when one disseminates information they know is false, but state it as true. And make it worse by demonizing those that disagree. (the demonizing is often a clear sign they know what they are saying is false).
That would be quite sane of an understanding. :).
Two folks or groups of folks that share information they both sincerely believe is true based on the evidence they have ... one could call real science. It also would not matter if one group would be shown to have gotten it wrong. They simply stood up for their point of view as would be a reasonable thing to do.
What could be called scientific consensus is when real science is done and all voices are heard. (and even then is likely only a temporary understanding, and should be understood as such by any true scientist).
When done correctly, the alternate views that remain are given respect. As is often the case with imperfect people, that alternate view can end up being the more true given enough time and study. Even Einstein experienced this. As did Galileo. :)
tldr: We are currently being attacked by tyrants that use words as weapons.
Revelations from the BIBLE against dictatorships
https://andreasalvatorebuffa.substack.com/p/revelations-from-the-bible
Finally I get some corroboration that I am not the crazy one. Exactly my problems with the terms "misinformation" and "scientific consensus"! Bravo!
You are only crazy if you understand those two terms - which are products of whichever group is projecting their insanity at any time (to be changed at their whim at another time!)
I would disagree a little :). If one understands that MI is only true when one disseminates information they know is false, but state it as true. And make it worse by demonizing those that disagree. (the demonizing is often a clear sign they know what they are saying is false).
That would be quite sane of an understanding. :).
Two folks or groups of folks that share information they both sincerely believe is true based on the evidence they have ... one could call real science. It also would not matter if one group would be shown to have gotten it wrong. They simply stood up for their point of view as would be a reasonable thing to do.
What could be called scientific consensus is when real science is done and all voices are heard. (and even then is likely only a temporary understanding, and should be understood as such by any true scientist).
When done correctly, the alternate views that remain are given respect. As is often the case with imperfect people, that alternate view can end up being the more true given enough time and study. Even Einstein experienced this. As did Galileo. :)
tldr: We are currently being attacked by tyrants that use words as weapons.
Let’s keep this going! The madness needs to stop!