Discriminating the lines of truth involves the ability to critically assess information, separating fact from fiction with clarity and discernment. It requires a commitment to evidence-based reasoning, open-mindedness, and an awareness of personal biases that might cloud judgment. Truth often lies at the intersection of context, perspective, and verifiable facts, making it essential to question assumptions and seek multiple viewpoints. By honing this skill, individuals can navigate complex situations with integrity, fostering deeper understanding and more meaningful connections in both personal and societal contexts.
As far as I’ve seen, “evidence based” is usually code for some kind of appeal to authority fallacy. Is this philosophy or mere empiricism?
What more “evidence” do you need than your own 5 senses and thinking mind, to discover philosophical truths? We all naturally acquire enough data/experiences by the time we are decently not young anymore. The question is how much time do we spend actively applying our critical, reasoning, thinking mind to combine data together to produce new insights, then keep doing that over and over and over without stopping.
In terms of philosophical truths I’d say we largely have what we need. Rather than scientific approaches of reading peer-reviewed research papers and trying to be “objective” a more subjective-based, life-enriching direct experience and “get out and live” mentality proves highly valuable. And reading some good books of others who have done the same.
I suspect this has been the agenda of the rulers from the very beginning. How fortunate must we be to experience some trickle-down ‘benefits’ from their tools in development.
And now you sound like one of their many transhumanist acolytes and worshippers of the “post-human” singularity emergence. Ready to plug his brain into the AI global matrix as soon as it becomes an option? Musk would be proud.