zurew

Thats a very good faith summary of what I said. A+ level engagement right there. Once you calm down a little bit and once you are ready to engage in good faith - there are reasonable ways to reconcile disagreements. Tell me when you are ready.

I think Dave's (be careful about your rhetoric, because you will fuel pseudoscience and science denialism) argument about scientist who criticise science has some merit and it can be used as an argument in favour of not having public debates/talks about certain topics (because of the broader negative effects on the population and because people are not mature enough to engage with certain content without misinterpreting it or without being misled by it). The question comes up - whether academia gives enough space and opportunity to academics where they can provide their criticism. And the follow up question is, whether academics are incentivised to not provide criticism (inside academic settings) , because if thats the case, then its not a surprise that they will eventually air out their grievances on other platforms.

Yeah - because of the lack of rigor , there is an equivocation going on, where people use a specific meaning for the term "Absolute" and then in the next sentence suddenly "Absolute" means something completely different. I have seen this trick being used in the context of a formal argument ( premise 1: if p then q; premise 2: p Conclusion: therefore q ) where 'p' in premise 1 means something completely different than what it means in premise 2 and because of that, the conclusion doesn't actually follow (but if we only look at what phrase is used 'p' - it could seem like the argument is valid) This method of randomly switching up the meaning behind how one use a particular a phrase, makes talks and debates about spirituality and philosophy impossible or at the very least unnecessarily confusing.

1) Im saying that Dave's attitude is irrational and dogmatic and sometimes doesn't make any sense. Especially his reply video to formscapes didnt make any sense. Formscapes provided very similar arguments to what Leo provided in his Myth of science series . He created a compact video where he brought facts about the replication crisis, he also gave a comprehensive argument about physics, he provided arguments on the limitations of certain ways of thinking about science and about the philosophy of science. Dave after seeing that video sperged the fuck out of his mind , made a bunch of accusations that he couldn't substantiate and provided 0 counter arguments to the issues that were brought up about the limitations and issues with philosophy of physics (inlcuding the assumed metaphysics and including the limiations of certain methods) 2) Im also saying that the reply of "but science works though" doesn't engage with a specific type of criticism thats aimed at a more broad and more abstract things like "there havent been any significant physics breakthrough in the last 50 years ". Attacking the foundations of physics doesnt entail that you need to reject some set of laws that will make science unfunctional to the point where we wont be able to build any tech anymore. One can provide a new theory that is consistent with those more pragmatic set of laws, while also offering solutions to other challenges. (hence why I brought up the example about Newton and Einstein). And my point is that if Dave wants to reject a new theory, or if Dave wants to reply to the lack of breakthrough criticism - saying "but science works though" isn't gonna cut it, because that is completely unresponsive to those criticisms. - Btw this isn't just aimed against Dave, because other people have used the "but science works though" argument in a context where it doesn't make any sense. 3) " What exactly do you believe scientists should be doing? " I personally think they should re-examine their methods and have debates about what kind of methods they should be using and they should collectively make a deep analysis on the effectiveness of their current methods and they should find a good explanation for the replication crisis and find a good explanation for the lack of breakthroughs in physics. They should also sometimes re-examine what science is and they should re-examine the set of exact principles and justifications that they want to use differentiate between pseudo science and science. This is consistent with the proposition that 'we should re-examine our methods '. The very fact that it is more and more difficult to make breakthroughs probably give some reason to be more sensitive to some change or to make a systemic analysis of all the mistakes and failures - analysing all the instances where scientist were wrong and where their reasoning failed and where the theoretical predictions turned out to be false.

Do you think the main reason why people don't eat healthy food in general is because they cant afford it? I don't think so , but even If I grant you that premise thats going to be more of an economic issue. Sure he can do that, but Im not sure what % of the health issues that will solve - I reject the premise that the main reason why people buy toxic food is because they cant afford more healthy food.

The way I use those words that sentence doesn't make much sense. What do you mean by terms like 'reality' and 'illusion' under which saying 'Reality is a true illusion' is a coherent statement?

@Emerald I have a random question - do you think engaging in hypnotherapy is basically doing shadow work? I am also thinking of those more weird and esoteric kind of hypno sessions like past- life regression and other weird stuff like that - do you think engaging in those could be categorized as doing shadow work or how would you make sense of those things from a psychology lense? (assuming you have a way to properly categorize them in some way)

People make comments about prevention but most people dont give a fuck about it. Lack of prevention doesn't happen because people dont know how to do it, people know about the basic methods but they still dont do them. Making a diet and lifestyle change is compatible with the current system right now and yet people dont do it. RFK wont suddenly solve that issue.

The general reply to the phil of science issues is that but "science works though" - look (insert a bunch of examples). Yep, thats true but that often times doesn't really engage with the criticism that is made. Its a strawman, because the criticism isn't about denying the validity of certain lower level equations that are necessary for us to build certain techs , the criticism often times aimed at more abstract level problems and equations and formulas. You can send a rocket to the moon using newtonian physics and you can do the same even if you accept general relativity. You accepting the validity of general relativity wont undermine you from sending rockets to the moon, but it will give you a more precise understanding of other things. So the point is - multiple different kind of theories are comaptible with "science working".

You are engaging in a hardcore fanboying of RFK without actually checking out what evidence he provides for his claims and without evaluating how many right or wrong claims he makes. The reason why you are doing that is because you like his anti-establishment approach. But you know that you can maintain your anti-establishment stance, without any need for endorsing all the wrong and retarded RFK claims, right? Making a systemic change in the health department and destroying bad incentive structures is compatible with you acknowledgeing that RFK jr either makes a bunch of claims that he cant subtantiate or at worst he is outright wrong on a big set of things including vaccines, seed oil, AIDS, antidepressants,fluoride and the list goes on and on.

She did elaborate a little bit on it, but I think that it is a dishonest portray of science from her part. She shouldn't have characterized the method the way she did, but again, her point still stands (that she has an issue with that method and not just with the mischaracterized version of it) and there was no specific response addressing the effectiveness of that specific method (other than bringing up higgs boson as an achievement for the last 50 years and then talking about achievements that are not foundations of physics related but sub discipline related) There is no engagement with the boogeyman - which is that there is probably a big need for phil of science debates and talks. (and probably this is not just related to physics)

What ? If you reread what I wrote you can see that I say "She brought up specifically the method she has an issue with, which is guessing math" -I didn't say there that he said it. Never said anywhere the he said that guessing math is a great strategy. What I said was, that he didn't demostrate that the current methods that are used are effective or helpful for making progress on the foundations of phyiscs (which was one of her contention and that is one point that he didn't address). With respect to the comment about 'scientific methodology can't be debated '- yes thats what the implication is, because he frames it as science denialism. Really? I wonder whether I included that in my previous post (that you replied to ) or not Maybe next time read my post more carefully before you try to defend Dave with this level of passion.

He did engage with some things, but he also spent a lot of time on speculating about her motivations. No, motivations are not always relevant and this is obvious. In the context of a debate - if I say X is true, its irrelevant why I say it, whats relevant is whether X is actually true or not. You can speculate endlessly why I hold my positon, but that doesn't engage with whether my postion is true or not. I watched the video and Dave didn't engage with some of her points. So for example, she made a criticsm about theory making and that there hasn't been any progress on that in the last 50 years . Dave didnt directly address this, he pivoted to talk about sub-disciplines , and then he brought up one valid point about Higgs boson. Yes, it can be said that finding the Higgs boson was an achieviement when it comes the foundations of physics, however this doesn't reply to whether the methods that are used in physics and in theory making are effective or good or not. She brought up specifically the method that she has an issue with which is "guessing math". Where you come up with something and then after that you start to search for it (and not inversely) . She tried to point to how absurd it would be if the same principle would be used in any other field . For instance - " Biologists inventing new species and then making expeditions to find them. Chemists inventing a hidden dark sector of the periodic table. Neurologists arguing it’d be pretty if synaptic connections followed the E8 root diagram and then putting people into MRI machines to search for it." - Now Dave did respond to that point with "Physicist work within models to predict with firm empirical basis what particles ought to exist should the Standard Model be accurate." - which is a fair reply , however 1) I don't know whether that can be said in all cases 2) That doesn't reply to the fact that she has an issue with this method - which would be a philosophy of science disussion around what kind of methods should be accepted in science, and more specifically what kind of methods should be accepted in physics and used by physicist for research and for theory crafting. The idea or the implication that there is no room for philosophy of science talk in any scientific field is ridiculous. I think thats not enough evidence. I think it can be perfectly explained by the bad experience she had with academia in general. I would be surprised if she would have such a good opinion about academia after the experience she had with it. I also disagree with framing it as science denialism. Its not science denialism, its supposed to be a philosophy of science (and more specifically philosophy of physics) critique.

And - there are instances when its appropriate and there are other instances where its completely irrelevant and its just a red herring. In a fucking debate - spending 50%+ of your time on speculating about why your debate opponent hold his/her views rather than addressing the positon is problematic. Even if you can address their position I don't know whats the relevance of speculating about their motivations. In politics though thats not the case - in politics there are many cases where figuring out motivations behind actions can be incredibly relevant and important. He doesn't establishes that she is grifting , but he certainly speculates a lot about it. He didn't provide a single argument in his video that would provide a symmetry breaker between the hypothesis of 'she genuinely believes in what she says and thats why she say the things she says' vs the hypothesis of 'she is exclusively doing it for the views and she is dishonest about her real position'. What was one piece of evidence that he provided in his video that is incompatible with the hypothesis of 'she genuinely believes in what she says' ?

what does that mean?