Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowperson
More is infinitely better.
The truth for one person is not necessarily the truth for another . . . . . so if that's the argument then you're into the sticky business of deciding what the truth is and who gets to decide.
It's much better to make all information available to everyone and let them decide on their own version of "truth." And, in the world today, almost regardless of where you are, you have access to a wide variety of information and a broad range of opinions on what the truth is.
<snip>
Cowperson
|
I hate to argue with you, since you're nearly always right, but I think you've failed to make an important distinction between "truth" and "fact." As Indiana Jones once said, if you're looking for "truth" there's a philosophy class just down the hall. If you're looking for fact, then you can only look for irrefutable, unambiguous data.
One needs to be able to draw the distinction between fact and fiction...facts and opinion...and then be prepared to use facts to draw his own opinions. In the vast majority of news media today (and since the beginning of print), facts are usually interwoven with opinions and "truths" that the writers or editors hold to be self-evident. The publishers have every right to do that. If I'm the publisher of a website, I reserve the right to censor anything that's not factual. If I simultaneously decide to allow certain people's interpretation of "truth" but censor others' opinions, then I suppose I've crossed the line from being a repository of "fact" to one of opinion.
I challenge anyone to come up with a website that's entirely factual in nature. Everything has opinion woven in. It's up to the user to determine what's what...but it's a difficult distinction. Critical thinking is an uncommon skill. I don't think that's anything new...it's just becoming more and more apparent now that everyone with a critical thinking deficit is able to have their opinions and beliefs published on the web.
But I ramble...