Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in or
create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| '''Truth''' on [[Consumerium]] is only determined by an [[audit]]. This keeps the [http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda propaganda] to a minimum. Deeper [http://internet-encyclopedia.info/wiki.phtml?title=truth truth] is probably beyond our scope. | | '''Truth''' on [[Consumerium]] is only determined by an [[audit]]. This keeps the [http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda propaganda] to a minimum. Deeper [http://internet-encyclopedia.info/wiki.phtml?title=truth truth] is probably beyond our scope. ''See [[glossary]] for our core concerns.'' |
|
| |
|
| While some [[trolls]] might believe that [[truth]] is [[factionally defined]], and others might believe that only [[gnawing]] actually determines which are the undisputed facts, probably it is all much more complex than that. The [[Consumerium:philosophy]] focuses on [[buying criteria]] which is not really the same as "finding the '''truth'''" about anything. Approximations, rumours even, can be fine substitutes if they come from [[trusted source]]s - there are many terms in the [[glossary]] that deal with gradations of truth and trust.''
| | See [http://wikipedia.org/wiki/truth Wikipedia: truth] for [[philosophy as usual]] that defies [[gnawlij]]. |
| | |
| [[Knowledge]] and its relation to [[Research Wiki]] and the [[Consumerium buying signal]], i.e. [[Publish Wiki]] is a much more cogent concern - see [[philosophy]] for some of the most basic disputes in representing "facts".
| |
| | |
| Basically, the presentation of the [[Consumerium buying signal]], like any [[healthy signal infrastructure|such signal]], is only an approximation of "the '''truth'''". If it were universally "true" than any defiance of it, say, to buy a [[red light]] item, might be considered to defy some [[ethic]] or [[moral order]]. This is over-simplified. In fact, people make all kinds of choices to pay a [[price premium]] or not, to trust [[signal]]s of various kinds, and to believe [[trolls]] or not. There is no single view of all of the issues or tradeoffs that are involved in the [[buying criteria]] of a person - the term [[moral purchasing]] itself admits that it is as personal as any other [[morality]].
| |
| | |
| With some information about what people actually did, i.e. [[buying decision]] information that could be matched against their avowed [[buying criteria]], we would probably have something closer to the '''truth''' about their concerns - but it's not clear that even [[friendly retail]] could get us this information.
| |
| | |
| See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/truth Wikipedia: truth] for [[philosophy as usual]] that defies [[gnawlij]] and basically wastes everyone's time. | |