That’s just false. Encyclopedias were successful at proposing information in the

That’s just false. Encyclopedias were successful at proposing information in the context of ‘neutral point of view’ which we now understand as ‘legal and empirical’ point of view: testimony.

Even as such, for example, in the sciences, were the previous generations of the theory of gravity wrong? Or are we just increasing the precision of the cause and measurement of gravity over time.

If you mean psychological and social and political grounds, it turns out that the postwar mass production of behavioral pseudoscience in pursuit of marxist pretenses of equality, then almost all social science prior to 1925 is superior to that since outside of a few innovations produced by cognitive science since 2000.

If you mean economics, then no, it’s pretty clear that pre-war economists understood both behavior and economics better than postwar. This is partly because they saw the globalization of the 1800s without the politicization of economics in response to the communists, socialists, and fascists. Or, the Keynesian’s for that matter.

Until about 2003 I could read the entire technical corups Microsoft and it’s competitors published on CD every year. At present I can still read all the meaningful papers in economics, the cognitive sciences, and physics. Nothing is coming out of law at all of merit. The behavioral social and political sciences are humiliating and intellectually embarrassing.

And Wikipedia is as biased as the Catholic and Marxist encyclopedias, or any of the religious laws.

Reply addressees: @GoodTexture @MrWarrenBuffet @whatifalthist @elonmusk