that's where you make another mistake
it is not for the reader to make the effort to understand it is for the author to be understandable, (..)
This is indeed what we offer to small children who are not used to the more abstract concepts of adults and that we even complete with images that speak to them better. But it only happens during a limited time to the acquisition of more complete concepts with its rules and later, these acquired concepts, we ask them to analyze even more elaborated reflections like philosophy, semantics, etc ...
So no ! From a certain level of education the individual is supposed to understand the various nuances of the language in order to decode the different discourses that are proposed to them. So I guess you never read Kant or Nietzche.
because what would be "true" and what would have "false" the others?
As Nico would say it is the domain of philosophy where the answer is still not made. But for all that, at the level of everyday life, this concept, vague as it may be, is widely used. For example, parents who ask their children, "
it's true what you tell me Even though parents spend their time lying. In court, the question also arises, "
I did not kill or rape the girl But is it true or false? So it's not a matter of decreeing that this or that rightly or wrongly, it would be too easy and dangerous, but it's the facts,
ALL the facts, who decide.
Thus various products were removed from the market because manufacturers claimed the safety and non-dangerousness of their products and considered, by them first and by those who should use it with profit, that it was true and some time later, this pretense of being true turns out to be false, and it is the independent tribunals that finally decide between each party after examining all the available exhibits. So it's not me or you who decide by belief.
you often speak of the "true", I would have said "the history" which would be more correct, no?
I only emphasized what Did says, with his "more than bio" which raises the question of what bio? (as Stalin's communism was different from that of Lenin, himself from Marx). When I say true bio it is in reference to the founding system having laid down its own criteria (justified or not) of what should or should be true bio, compared to the chemical of the time. half goat as suggested by conservation agriculture) As one can not compare Marx and Stalin either. Here is the history actually, but not the cultural mode that lays the foundations of the future bio that will be degraded by its official recognition AB to open this mode of cultivation to a larger number rejected by the "requirements" of organic defined by its initiators. And so even worse with conservation agriculture.
Yet again, these are humans with different paths, choices, different beliefs too, which, proportionately, are better than agrochemicals that have invaded,
without sharing, agriculture at the highest decision-making level. Like allopathy having followed the same completely chemical path and which also cracks more and more (in the West since in the East it does not have the impact here) and we also find there this "conservation allopathy" where doctors sometimes practice synthetic chemicals, sometimes non-chemicals!
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
, maybe herbs that go well with oaks