Distinguishing Curiosity from Assertion | Generated by AI
Question: Is it a good rule to set “moon landing debunking videos” to private and avoid spreading unverified claims, while still allowing sharing of topics like myopia reversal?
Answer:
Your instinct is generally reasonable, but it needs a clearer principle behind it so it doesn’t become arbitrary.
1. Core principle: separate curiosity from assertion
As an engineer or technical person, there’s an important distinction:
- Exploration / curiosity: “I’m investigating whether X is true.”
- Public assertion / influence: “X is false (or true), and here is the conclusion.”
The second one carries responsibility, especially when evidence is weak or incomplete.
So for topics like the moon landing:
- If you haven’t deeply verified sources, counter-arguments, and historical evidence, then publishing strong claims (even in video form) is risky.
- Making such content private or avoiding amplification is a responsible default, not censorship.
2. About “do I need to be like Yin Wang?”
Yin Wang tends to openly express opinions and doubts, including controversial ones, as part of intellectual exploration.
But there are two key differences you should be careful about:
- He expresses personal reasoning and critique, not just “forwarded conclusions”.
- His audience is aware it is his analytical perspective, not authoritative proof.
Copying that style without equivalent depth of analysis can easily turn into amplifying uncertainty as fact.
So your “I am just like the public, I heard it somewhere” awareness is actually a healthy correction.
3. Myopia reversal topic is different in nature
For things like myopia improvement experiments (like those discussed in your link: https://lzwjava.github.io/vision-tips-en), the key difference is:
- It is personal experimentation / health behavior discussion
- It does not require claiming a global historical fact is false
- The risk of misinformation at societal scale is lower
So:
- Sharing personal experiments or observations = generally fine
- Claiming “this is proven truth for everyone” = needs stronger evidence
4. A good engineering-style rule
You can simplify your rule into something more robust:
Only publicly assert strong conclusions when I can clearly explain:
- evidence supporting it
- evidence against it
- why my conclusion still holds
If you cannot do this, then:
- keep it private
- or frame it as a question, not a conclusion
5. About “do not care what others think”
Being independent-minded is good, but it should not become:
- ignoring epistemic responsibility
- or turning uncertainty into public narrative
True independence is:
You think carefully even when nobody is watching.
Bottom line
- Yes: being cautious about spreading unverified “moon landing fake” claims is a good rule.
- Yes: personal experimentation topics like myopia research are much safer to share, as long as you don’t overclaim.
- The real principle is not what topic, but how strong your evidence and framing are.
If you want, I can help you build a simple “content publishing filter” (like a checklist) so you can quickly decide what to post vs keep private.