Thanks for clearing that up.

I agree ‘true-for-now’ is much like learning the old fashioned way when knowledge was (and still is) added, changed and expanded by scientists, philosophers, artists and the like.

The notion of the web’s souped-up version of ‘true-for-now’ entering the wild sounds chaotic to me.

Under the original ‘true-for-now’ scenario, what was true would have been more regulated and in the hands of the few, and presumably responsible.

I would think the fluidity of the web wouldn’t translate well into the real world and result in a rockier ride than what we experience on the Internet.

With truth set by anyone with the savvy to write a convincing post, edit a photo or hack a road sign, the impacts on people, especially those unaware of what can be done with today’s technology, could be disruptive.

Cheers

Just that I think that if you think about something like Wikipedia, which I love, there isn’t really any one point at which you would say it’s ‘true’, as a continually morphing thing, it’s in a perpetual state of true-for-nowness. I guess you could say some of the same things about all learning, but it seems more pronounced, more fluid, online. Thanks for commenting!