This is a good viewpoint, too. But it would be good to canvas a range of views from more than 1 country (for example, more than just China).
There's some kind of a "evidence problem" where we rely on a single-source for "evidence" (the government), while discounting "evidence" from testimony/imagery from rando people (even before AI).
Same time, your point touches a key issue: if you don't have experience yourself, no matter what external "proof", you may not believe it. Which is fine, and valid I think.
> There's some kind of a "evidence problem" where we rely on a single-source for "evidence" (the government), while discounting "evidence" from testimony/imagery from rando people (even before AI).
Real evidence isn't dependent on the source. It can be evaluated objectively.
> if you don't have experience yourself, no matter what external "proof", you may not believe it. Which is fine, and valid I think.
I disagree, really. This, along with the opposite (believing in things despite the lack of evidence) are both positions rooted in fantasy rather than reality.
Ok, then you disempower your own experience and outsource authority to a (collective) externality? If you are comfortable with that trade, I get it. I am just more in favor of individual autonomy/sovereignty.
However, focusing on a sophist "objective materialism" vs "subjective epistemology" distracts from the core issue: what is happening? and what do you believe?
> then you disempower your own experience and outsource authority to a (collective) externality?
The opposite, actually.
> what is happening?
I'm not exactly sure how to answer this question because I'm not sure what you're referring to. But taking the question generally, I think what is happening is that people see things they can't identify and are speculating about what they saw. Maybe they saw aliens, maybe not, but it's essentially impossible to tell from the reports themselves.
> and what do you believe?
I believe that I don't know.
However, while aliens might be visiting the Earth, it seems to me that the odds of that being the case are so tiny that "aliens" shouldn't be the first thing we think of.
There's some kind of a "evidence problem" where we rely on a single-source for "evidence" (the government), while discounting "evidence" from testimony/imagery from rando people (even before AI).
Same time, your point touches a key issue: if you don't have experience yourself, no matter what external "proof", you may not believe it. Which is fine, and valid I think.