posted on Sep, 13 2021 @ 01:29 PM
Do you remember in school when you had to show your work on all your math problems? You could be ready to graduate High School, but could still fail a
test for not showing basic single digit addition, which the teacher KNOWS you are an expert in. You have been doing it for 12 years and have solved
thousands and thousands of problems, moving on to the next grade proving you obviously know addition, but if you leave it out the answer is not
acceptable regardless of your excuse.
Every time any of you argue you "trust" something, but cannot explain exactly why, you are making the mistake our teachers taught us not to. Just
because someone is labeled an expert and has been doing something for a long time, does not mean you should assume their basic assumptions are right.
You should never even get to examining the answer presented for the problem as a whole because you don't even know how they got halfway there, so the
final solution might as well come from religious text you follow with faith, which may be fine for you, but not everyone else.
Science is the opposite of faith. Its what you can prove, measure, and reproduce, no faith or trust required. Each conclusion is made stronger the
more times it is challenged and every step to the solution is confirmed as being correct by reproducing the results. You don't "trust science",
that's a ploy for useful idiots. If you are intelligent you do what computer programs and almost every other thing in existence does that processes
unverified information, you "trust (depending on source), but verify". You ask WHY, HOW, etc.
If you are intellectually lazy and think you no longer need to verify conclusions because the answers are too complex for you to comprehend, then what
exactly is it people smarter than you CANNOT convince you to do by presenting BS as fact and a false premise to build future BS on? You may think
there is some point where you would stop and realize you are being played, but if the premise on which you trust, and save things to memory as being
labeled true, has a flaw where that information has not been verified before you decided to trust it and save it to memory, then you do not know what
is true because you know things are true that are not. One little block of information can slip in there that is not true because you are too lazy to
verify, that many other blocks are later built on, and they are all lies because the premise was false. How would you know if you were the victim of
this type of manipulation? You wouldn't. You would think you are 100% correct, because you got all the right answers from the experts.
Now lets remove the ability for the conclusions to be challenged by the larger community (censor them with fact checkers who have no science
background and dont double check the answers themselves), remove accountability for wrong answers, push narratives not proven to be true as fact, and
not allow direct public questioning of the experts. How much of what you get out of that system should you trust? How many things do you know all
about that just arent true? How would you know? Whats it worth?