Here’s some breaking news—the world, as we know it, is going to end when you close your eyes... Did you believe it? No? Why not? Is it because you don’t think the world will end, or do you just doubt it will happen anytime soon? Along with that, you wouldn’t just trust a random article online, would you? But what if this information was confirmed by major organizations like the government, the UN, or NASA? That might change your reaction. We live in a society where the concept of "credibility" plays a crucial role, but isn’t it just a myth? Or, to be blunt, aren’t we all foolish and no one is truly credible?
Let’s try to break down the necessary conditions for what makes something credible. Should the source be an official organization? Should it be widely accepted? Or maybe it just needs to deliver information in a complicated manner while giving off “serious” vibes. Think about it this way—would you blindly believe a company run by toddlers? Or would you start consuming metal rods if the whole world suddenly deemed them nutritious? "Serious" vibes and tone should be the last thing to consider. These are just means of communication and don't necessarily reflect the quality of the information itself. Given these considerations, it seems impossible to define what makes something credible.
Now, let’s look at this from a more scientific point of view. If you paid attention in science class, you’d know that not all organisms perceive the world in the same way. Some can’t see specific colors, while others can’t hear certain sounds. Heck, not even all humans experience the world identically—nearly 5% of the population is colorblind. If that's the case, isn’t everything we see also untrustworthy? For example, you see an apple and say it’s “red.” Someone else might see it and call it “red” too. But is there any way to confirm that what both of you see is the same? There isn’t. We are all taught the name that we associate with things, but that doesn’t guarantee we perceive them in the same way. If you teach a baby to call an apple “red,” it will do so, but it doesn’t know what you’re seeing, and you don’t know what the baby sees either. Nonetheless, we’ve all agreed that an apple is red. Doesn’t this mean our whole reality, as we know it, is just a collection of mutual agreements?
Take various sciences, for example. Concepts like gravity, torque, atomic structure and cells have been redefined multiple times before being set in stone. Isn’t it safe to say that these are merely human attempts to give the various phenomena of our vast world some form of reasoning? Isn’t our understanding of the world based on what’s convenient for us? Aren’t we just calling others “colorblind” because we don’t feel like maybe the flaw lies in us that we can see those colors? Many times, throughout history, many facts, inventions and discoveries have been rejected only to be proved true later. It is always said that people of that time weren’t “open-minded” but are we? A lot of us just believe information and perspectives fed to us by giant organizations and news outlets who are “credible”.
This article isn’t some conspiracy theory about the "matrix". My sole purpose is to encourage people to think. No matter what you learn, hear, or read, think about it. If someone says that your favourite show is subpar, hear them out. Feel free to curse them later, but still, hear them out. Think. Thinking is what supposedly sets humans apart from animals. Accept everything but question it as well. Believe me or don’t—I’m not “credible” anyway. Or am I?
Kommentare