Outsourcing Worldview Development To Books And The Internet: Identical Epistemological Flaws

Writing is writing, regardless of the exact medium.  It might be accessed digitally or held on a physical page in one's hand, but the epistemological nature of writing is the same in all cases.  One can be absolutely certain that one is having the experience of reading, yes, but only claims such as about logic itself, the nature of something like introspection and conscious experience, and the fallacies of mistaken epistemological ideas can actually be proven conceptually by the arguments put into writing.  Of course, most written claims are about matters of science and history, two things mostly locked behind epistemological limitations and mostly irrelevant to core philosophy.  These are still the very things for which the average person looks to writing for epistemological deliverance.

Ironically, there are people who rush to books in a futile effort to "prove" the scientific or historical claims they read online, and there are people who rush to the internet thinking they can truly prove the scientific and historical information they read in books.  Being the dimwitted epistemologists that they are, they might genuinely fail to see that both books and the internet have the same epistemological limitations: asserting something does not make it true and claims other than ones pertaining strictly to logic, phenomenology, and core metaphysics and epistemology cannot be proven by the claims of an author.  The folly of the moderners eager to "prove" reports and hearsay using written mediums, whether online or in books or newspapers, is that they want the impossible.

The difference between written claims about logic (and truths logic illuminates directly) and written claims about science or history is that books and the internet are not necessary for a person to think about or understand logical truths, and anyone writing about them without thinking otherwise is actually writing about the only things that can be communicated in writing and immediately confirmed by readers.  The most foundational, all-encompassing, and important truths--and the only ones both absolutely certain and immediately accessible to literally anyone who mentally pursues them with or without written prompting--are the only ones writing can contain genuine proofs for, given that the author described true ideas about reason.

One of the many delusions of modern society is the idea that one written publication about empirical or historical events can be objectively disproven by another publication, for only logically necessary truths about concept clarification and what does and does not follow from the evidences for these events can be immediately proven.  There is no way in hell for a human to know that anything is true just because they hear or read it.  Even if a written document elaborates on rationalistic truths, and even though a person could certainly discover or reflect on logical truths without ever reading anything, he or she would be still forced to look to reason to verify the claims in the text.  No matter what, the only true knowledge that can be possessed is always grounded in reason and not in online and physical writings.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.