Don’t get me started on EMD again. 💩
re: agip. It is true that he seemingly had no original thoughts and simply regurgitated that which he was fed. That is evident from not only the issues he discussed and positions he articulated, but also from how he did it. It was like reading press releases and talking points. I get the same vibe from nearly retired.
And “truth” has many layers. In the world in which we normally function, we work to establish a common understanding of facts, which commonality permits intercourse, cooperation, and development.
Abstractions like “there is no absolute truth” are esoteric, impractical, and inapplicable to our everyday lives, unless you are engaged in discussions of philosophy, religion, metaphysics, etc.
Instead of “truth”, it is often more practical to speak in terms of accuracy, precision, value, utility, etc, especially insofar as things like economic and social predictions are concerned. The context of statements is critically important in this regard.
Within daily operative normative standards, yes there are truths and untruths, but such concepts are useful only when describing discrete facts. Context does not always require exploration—eg “the rate of inflation is x” contains much contextual information that can and should be discussed depending on the purpose of the discussion, but to describe whether there is 1 or zero apples on the table suffices.
I agree that agip had issues, but people can change. Maybe he is having a “red pill” moment, who knows. He should definitely be re-evaluating some of his beliefs. Many people are now doing the same where I live, and it has been reflected in electoral results, among other things.
But he should be doing it while on a long run, of course.