Comments by "Kora Na" (@korana6308) on ""But how do you know you're right?" - Objective Theory of History" video.

  1. I was on board with the video right up until the 27:37 ... didn't you say that you can't ignore certain sources just because you didn't like them??? which is the opposite of what you are suggesting in this chart. For objective truth you can't just ignore a certain source. You can definitely consider them less reliable and give them the least amount of attention, even giving the tiers to the sources is fine. But you can't outright ignore them by the very definition. I can even go over every single point: Forgeries - how do you know it's a forgery? if it's a forgery what was the reason for the forgery? perhaps the author wanted to actually instate the actual truth into the text or a doctrine? why not? on top of that, I've been recently hooked into some medieval book restoration videos here on youtube, and it turns out that it's a common practice, to "fill in the missing gaps" in texts that are missing something (to the best of their ability)... So they are in a sense are forging something... And if you'd discovered that book after a 100 years time and not know about the supposed restoration, and you would discover that the actual paint on that book is only 100 years old and is not 500 years old as you were lead to believe... therefore you would come to the conclusion that it has been forged or manipulated... The forging is also an information in itself so it is by itself is relevant. Who had forged it and why? Perhaps he was recreating the ACTUAL document. How would you know? Beliefs - beliefs or religious beliefs in particular are usually formed on the basis of the actual events and the actual truths, they can be misinterpreted, yet they always take something factual at it's core. Zero evidence - how do you know there's 0 evidence? Sometimes people might even forget to include their evidence or sources, it doesn't mean that their account is invalid, or that evidence doesn't exist. Cartesian Doubt - since when being skeptical is wrong? Slanderers - I agree with this to a certain degree, though usually slanderers have some evidence to back up their claims, though I agree that most of the time it's usually irrelevant to the topic. Smearers - If I understand it correctly those are the people who go on a tangent about irrelevant points? How do you know they are irrelevant? ( if I understood it correctly). Proven liars - again, a proven liar or "someone who is wrong for an attempted gain of his personal benefit", does not necessarily lies all of the time. Or at least not in the area that it would be irrelevant for them to lie in for their benefit. There's a case of pathological liars... (however I'd still argue that their opinion could still be relevant to a certain degree). Whataboutism - comparative analysis is actually the best thing we have to get to the truth. Dialectics - again gaining different subjective perspectives, how could that be bad? Subjectivism - bias is bad but bias has it's ground too, just like with someone who is not being honest, if you know why that it , you can potentially sieve out the nuggets of truths from it. Postmodernists - you obviously can't take it as your primary source, but it still worth to consider. Magic - ? to me that sounds like no explanation and the person is trying to cope out of an answer. Spirits - same thing. Thank you for your videos and your work.
    2