Discussing people that you never met. Phenomena that you never observed. Stuff that you never saw, personally, with your own eyes.
Discussion without empiricism. Without grounding.
Discussing people that you never met. Phenomena that you never observed. Stuff that you never saw, personally, with your own eyes.
Discussion without empiricism. Without grounding.
And then there’s replies like this. Defending it.
What is your question though? Yes online forums exist, yes the information is often unempirical. But what is your question here? What is the “this” you are questionning yourself about? Are you asking why people debate each other? Why people are curious about subjects even though they are wrong? I just don’t get what you are trying to say here.
Here is my question.
What is this conversation that I’m indicating here? What might you call it? What’s good, bad, strong, weak etc about it?
If a conversation that is empirically grounded is called “science”, what is a conversation that is empirically ungrounded called?
A conversation, simply. There’s no requirements for having a discussion. That’s what we do, we speak to each other whether for good or bad.
And just in case because I’m still not completely sure if you are actually asking something or just making a social comment on online media; The literal antonym to what you seem to describe would be a “subjective” or “speculative” discussion. There’s other antonyms but I’ll let you search those out to see which fits your need.
My point is, this thing that we have here is unprecedented in its vast size and it’s profound disconnection from reality.
So no, not just “a conversation”.
A conversation where most of the talk refers to fantasy. Where any insanity can find a support group filled with the likeminded. Where the greatest powers are those that seek to manipulate us and control our attention. A dreamworld where matter is entertainment.
And everybody takes it so seriously.
If it was a person we’d put him in an asylum.
Yes, what is this thing?
If this were a fantasy novel we might call it a hell-realm filled with hungry hallucinating ghosts and promise-weaving succubi. Too much?
Ok thanks finally some insight on your thoughts. See how it gives better context than just saying “What is this” and gesticulating towards the internet. Your question was heavily influenced by prejudice.
Most of the talk does not refer to fantasy, that is a great example of some “unempirical evidence”. Some do, a lot don’t, you need to be able to filter that. Sure If you look for it, the worst will appear. But stop mindlessly reading what pops in front of you and make some active research and your worldview might change.
The rest is just you thinking out loud. Nobody takes everything so seriously all the time about every subject. Honestly I’m thinking you are falling for what you seem so concerned about. Look away from the endless stream sometimes. Search for your own source of news. Make your own change. The world certainly looks grim if we let rampant capitalism unleashed, but you are not proposing anything here. This here post is you disguising a rant into a question.
Ugh. Forget it.
What do you think then?
Or did you really only want someone to answer you “It’s hell” and confirm your bias? You really read like an angsty teenager who just had it’s first joint and 101 philosophy class.
Edit: Are you suggesting people shouldn’t have the right to debate with one another? Or that some should get it but not the others?
edit:edit: Why are YOU doing it?
No man. I wanted something better than conventional, popular, obvious and literal.
And now I’m being insulting. Sorry.
Your naming it sheds little light.
What’s good, bad, strong and weak about it?
Sorry my man but you are not clear at all. I’m trying to understand what you do not understand about people talking with each other. There’s nothing more to it. It’s neither good nor bad nor strong or weak, it’s just a discussion. What happens afterwards with the information each gathered from the discussion is different but we need context. It’s what the discussion is ABOUT that is important not the discussion in itself.
So give us some context. Are you talking about journalism in media or are you also questioning whether we should discuss our hobbies with like minded individuals? Are you implying there’s something wrong with social media because it allow anyone to talk with anybody about anything?
WIthout answers to these your questions is pointless I’m afraid.
edit: Otherwise, if I try to answer your question as it was written: Yes it’s good, Yes it’s bad. More details are needed to judge beyond that.