In the 21st century, one word in particular stands out: Sciences.
It is often the science of seemingly incontrovertible data. Or it is the science of unreviewed studies, and is not taken into account when a political decision is at stake. live forspecial dayThe effectiveness of science communication is called into question: What exactly does science mean?
Are all bells heard? Can everything be questioned?
The meaning of “politics” could include the answer: Civil dialogueAccording to classical philosophy, it was to be considered so if the comparison was in fact “scientific”, or if his theses were as structured as possible by their logic and truth. discussion between Fabio Durante And Mario Tozzi It does, however, present a problem with regard to dialogue: the problem of dialectical fallacies that can affect healthy confrontation.
But the most relevant thing is that horizontal collision What seems to be taking shape today: this constant clash of people which often does not allow for an effective resolution of the debate. Among these issues we just mentioned, there is one that needs to be explored: Should we “trust” data? Is it necessary to automatically believe the majority? Is there a majority taking over? “If we pass the concept – Durante explains – That stake must prevail over consciousness, we are dead. In the era of the epidemic, there were that 1% of doctors who gave advice who conducted studies: So it was right not to consider them because they are part of the minority?“
Tozi replied:If there are 100 people at the bedside of my sick child and 3 tell me they doubt the operation, 97 instead don’t, what do I do? are we kidding“
Hear the direct comparison on “special day“.
“Infuriatingly humble social media buff. Twitter advocate. Writer. Internet nerd.”
