![]() ![]() In any case, usually it's not the bare facts that re contested, but their interpretation/evaluation (ethical, as regards to motive, or as regards to utility, etc). They will still work with imperfect facts or with some wrong facts, but their output is improved the closest to accurate (and real) facts they get. Third, whatever this or that party, or ideology, or politician, or corporation, or media outlet, does to distort facts, it is still accepted that facts are good, and facts corresponding to reality is what we should be aiming for.įourth, no working scientist, engineer, and so on, can function well without facts or when provided with false facts pertaining to their field. Because they still understand that facts are important. Second, even when they refefine some fact, they still present the new information as fact. They still agree that a table is a table and that the Earth is flat, and billions of other things. Pretending it doesn't happen is not a satisfactory choice for me.įirst, they don't redefine all or even most factual information, just politics/monetary/national/etc-interest charged facts. Many places in the world already redefine "factual information" with their own definitions that are based on e.g. > Taking off my devil's advocate hat for a moment - I disagree here. I find my own kids ability to research subjects have been compromised- I can hardly convince them to do more than pump a literal question into Google and … maybe click on the first link? It’s terrifying. I find my ability to make rational arguments is greatly improved after I have the chance to dedicate time reading good books. Sleep is important for the brain to organize thoughts during the day, and the fact that I had at least 10 sleep cycles to process the information I had learned in that “chunk” helps me truly remember concepts in the book in a way an hour long video cannot. The author in that book wove in quotes from primary sources, details and nuance from the private lives to develop a nuanced view of the characters, all of which provides the deep understanding required to fully grasp the events that led up to the 1962 spy swap between two superpowers.įinally, the fact that it took me 15 hours to read that book over the course of a few weeks meant that I had the ability to start synthesizing higher level understanding of the book rather than just recognizing a few facts. The next reason is the depth of understanding that you can gain from the act of reading. ![]() I just read Giles Whittell’s book Bridge of Spies, and it easily took me over 15 hours to read from cover to cover. ![]() First is simply the fact that you must dedicate much more time to read a book than a short form video. I can think of a few reasons to support my assertion. The information density and the ability to drive deep into a subject is far superior in written form than a video. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |