vulgarised

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what peer review is and why it is useful in popular or heavy vulgarised science.

Pali words seem like they are vulgarised Sanskrit words.

Empathy is more important in the way History is vulgarised (to avoid glorifying or victimising people who have nothing to do with what happened) than in History itself.

I've actually seen it quite regularly in vulgarised science pieces.

It seems to me that this notion became popular in the last few years and has been so simplified/vulgarised that people expect half the world to lose their job at once when "robots" and "ai" take over.

For example, Meillassoux's critique of correlationism pretty much says that the whole epistemological manoeuvres, perhaps vulgarised by postmodern turn, by which it is claimed there is nothing "real" without a human correlated to it and that "reality" cannot be truly accessed, only reality as it appears to human beings, distorted by power, ideology etc etc.

It seems to me that this notion became popular in the last few years and has been so simplified/vulgarised that people expect half the world to lose their job at once when "robots" and "ai" take over.

For example, Meillassoux's critique of correlationism pretty much says that the whole epistemological manoeuvres, perhaps vulgarised by postmodern turn, by which it is claimed there is nothing "real" without a human correlated to it and that "reality" cannot be truly accessed, only reality as it appears to human beings, distorted by power, ideology etc etc.