On all matters reality decides which is which. None of us have a psychic link to God (anyone who thinks he does, does not, and should be institutionalised), but there are many good heuristics for what is true, and we do not have to abandon the concept of truth.

▲

jamwil 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I think we agree but those heuristics… That is the scientific method. That’s all we got.

	▲	direwolf20 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		One of many, and one of the best. Unless you performed the scientific method yourself, you have to use another. A truthful-seeming report of someone else performing it is pretty far up the ladder, until the enemies learn to write false experiment reports indistinguishable from real ones. Not all fields of study are amenable to the scientific method, and lesser scientific methods are the best possible. We can't duplicate earth and flood one with CO2. We have to reach farther down the heuristic ladder, like studying two glass bottles, one filled with CO2. This can be extrapolated to calculate what a planet filled with CO2 would do, but the maths required is much less accessible.
	▲	danudey 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		99% of climate scientists: human-triggered climate change is real 1% of climate scientists: climate change is probably just something that happens and we can't do anything about it Legacy media: it's important that we give equal time to both sides of this argument. Social media: climate change is a lie and you can tell because 99% of climate scientists all agree that it's real! That's how you know it's a conspiracy! You can't trust the institution! Also buy these supplements, they cure covid and cancer and chemtrails! We're doomed.