Terrence Howard on Reality

[Leo Gura]

Sounds like a classic conspiracy nutcase.

Edited May 27 by Leo Gura

[Salvijus]

40 minutes ago, undeather said:

it's PROPABLY not much more than the next psychotic narcissist who uses complicated sophistry. The reason why so many people fall for it is because it "sounds smart" - but it just isn't.

Even if he's wrong. It's still entertaining to watch new ideas being explored. There is really no need to call anyone names and take sides. It could be just a genuine friendly exploration of new ideas. And if he turns out to be wrong. Great. Howard will have a chance to improve his theories further and continue following his passion. It's always a good day for science when people are discussing new ideas. 

Edited May 27 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

47 minutes ago, undeather said:

if you think the toxicity stems from "DNA wrapping around the Arsenic-molecule" (lol), then bring some sort of proof for it - don't just say it - show us!

That's what he's trying to do already. He claims he has the proofs if only people would give him a chance to explain himself. That's why he wants to talk to sciencetis and turn this into a discussion. But he's mostly being dismissed right of the bat without any basis. That's why it would be interesting to see a genuine convocation between a scientists and Howard. 

Edited May 27 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

53 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Sounds like a classic conspiracy nutcase.

Conspiracies sometimes turn out to be true. That's the beauty of it.

[zurew]

10 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

It's still entertaining to watch new ideas being explored.

Thats not what is happening though. That can only happen if people could engage with and explore ideas in a responsible manner, but thats not the case.

Whats happening is that he has a constellation of anti-establishment beliefs about a bunch of things and his anti-establishment fans take what he says for granted and easily get misinformed by him. "hmm, he says government and institutions bad, therefore his other ideas about science stuff must be right as well"

The idea that any of his fans that are already very persuaded by his ideas (without any evidence) will somehow change their minds once counter-evidence or counter arguments are established by scientist is just foolishness. 

The vast majority of the flat earthers stay being flat earthers even after they are being shown in a very precise detail, why they are wrong.

 

10 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

That's what he's trying to do already. He claims he has the proofs if only people would give him a chance to explain himself. That's why he wants to talk to sciencetis and turn this into a discussion. But he's mostly being dismissed right of the bat without any basis.

He is being dismissed because he is a horrible reasoner with the combination of being a narcissist.  Even if his conclusion about something will turn out to be right in the future , he shouldnt get any credit for it, because the reasoning that he uses to get there is very bad. 

Its like you have a hate bias against your uncle and a crime happens at your house while your uncle is there. Lets say there is 5 logically possible explanation on the table and you immediately assume that your uncle commited the crime even though you literally have no evidence or agument for it. After years of investigation by the police they conclude that your uncle did indeed commit that crime, but they can show evidence for it. - Would you say that you should take credit for being right from the get-go?

 

 

[undeather]

37 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Even if he's wrong. It's still entertaining to watch new ideas being explored. There is really no need to call anyone names and take sides. It could be just a genuine friendly exploration of new ideas. And if he turns out to be wrong. Great. Howard will have a chance to improve his theories further and continue following his passion. It's always a good day for science when people are discussing new ideas. 

29 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

That's what he's trying to do already. He claims he has the proofs if only people would give him a chance to explain himself. That's why he wants to talk to sciencetis and turn this into a discussion. But he's mostly being dismissed right of the bat without any basis. That's why it would be interesting to see a genuine convocation between a scientists and Howard. 

Everyone has ideas - there are literally thousands of self proclaimed TOEs (theories of everything) by all sorts of individuals, laymen and universal geniuses, throughout the history of mankind up to this day. I agree with you that it's entertaining and also important to engange with new ideas, even if they might sound "ridicolous" at first glance - Moreover, "paradigm shifts" tend to happen in such manner.

But then again - most ideas are also wrong. For every true, paradigm -shattering idea, there are millions of falsehoods. And this guy is just not passing the initial smell-test: He has nothing to show except a ridicolously flawed "paper" (1x1=2) and some animations on the computer - where is the data? where are the precise formulations? where are the predictions? where is ANY kind of observational evidence? - it's all just vague gesturing and smart sounding words. This is why scientists don't give him a chance - there is nothing to work with. If you have a universe-breaking idea, then you should be able to do something with it. The only reason we take this guy and his ideas seriously is because he was on the Joe Rogan experience.

Again, there is nothing discuss and he is not dismissed without any basis - when he says that "DNA is wrapping around the arsenic molucule" - then what is there to discuss? This is just not how DNA works, this has never been observed in the history of biology - where is his evidence? If he says that he has some sort of new propulsion technology - then show something - make a go-fund me with a prototype - idk ANYTHING! 

I am all for being open minded towards new ideas - but not that open minded that your brain falls out.
This guy gives me strong narcissist vibes - plus, again - this is a pattern - there is a history of abuse and mental health issues. It's a pretty easy wager if you ask me!

Edited May 27 by undeather

[Leo Gura]

It's enough to hear him talking about how the technical glitches in his operation of his phone or Jamie's playing of a video are a conspiracy by the government to shut him up.

When evaluating people like this, what you look at is their grasp of epistemology and self-deception mechanics, not the content of their beliefs.

Edited May 27 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

13 hours ago, Salvijus said:

Lol. He's so offended that Howard or somebody else gave a bad reputation to scientific community. 

People should stop taking sides and roasting each other and start having proper conversations already. Gosh... 

No he is mad, becuase a bunch of stupid people take what Howard says for granted without any critical thought, just because they are idologically aligned.

13 hours ago, Salvijus said:

The ironic part is that there is some validity in critism of scientific community being close minded towards alternative views of people such as Howard and that they even will go as far as to ridicule and belittle them in uncool manner.

Howard is too closed minded towards mainstream science.

10 hours ago, Brahman said:

I think the point is not whether to trust the layman more than educated/experienced. The point is whether anyone can create brilliant ideas

Brilliant ideas and breakthrough minds are not confined to academic institutions and standardized degrees. In fact I would argue this standardization of education can often hinder true creative breakthroughs as the mind becomes conditioned to paradigms set by authority

He needs to establish first, that he knows what he is talking about and that social or institutional standard is good imo (there are just so much stupid lunatics who can waste researchers and professors time who could spend their time on much important stuff). He could have easily established that he knows what he is talking about , if he would have started with the steelmanning of the scientific positions that he tries to challenge right now. Imagine him being able to give a detailed rundown of certain scientific theories and the implications of such theories and then only after that would have given his challenge for them.

 

Edited May 27 by zurew

[Salvijus]

16 minutes ago, undeather said:

Again, there is nothing discuss and he is not dismissed without any basis - when he says that "DNA is wrapping around the arsenic molucule" - then what is there to discuss? This is just not how DNA works, this has never been observed in the history of biology - where is his evidence? If he says that he has some sort of new propulsion technology - then show something - make a go-fund me with a prototype - idk ANYTHING! 

I can't believe you made me do the Google search of his proofs. You should do it yourself if you're really interested in his proofs. But here's one I was able to find. 

https://saemobilus.sae.org/articles/lynchpin-a-novel-geometry-modular-tangential-omnidirectional-flight-01-16-03-0018#view

 

[Salvijus]

21 minutes ago, undeather said:

I am all for being open minded towards new ideas - but not that open minded that your brain falls out.
This guy gives me strong narcissist vibes - plus, again - this is a pattern - there is a history of abuse and mental health issues. It's a pretty easy wager if you ask me

If you asked me, I would say the only way to settle this if his theories are properly examined in a genuine conversation where he can have a chance to go back and forth with others over his ideas. Simply calling him names is the worst way approach this. 

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

Simply calling him names is the worst way approach this.

Calling him names doesnt establish that his ideas are wrong, but it does reinforce a social/institutional standard, where you first needs to establish that you know what you are talking about (again, by for example steelmanning the theories you try to challenge), before you are given time and attention by highly educated people

[Salvijus]

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

No he is mad, becuase a bunch of stupid people take what Howard says for granted without any critical thought, just because they are idologically aligned

Most people who take Howard's side are deluded. And most people who take science's side are deluded too. Only those who are neutral about it and want to see genuine exploration over proposed theories are in a healthy position imo. 

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

you first needs to establish that you know what you are talking about

And how does one do that? 

[zurew]

Just now, Salvijus said:

And how does one do that? 

bunch of ways to do that I have already given one straightforward way:

11 minutes ago, zurew said:

He could have easily established that he knows what he is talking about , if he would have started with the steelmanning of the scientific positions that he tries to challenge right now. Imagine him being able to give a detailed rundown of certain scientific theories and the implications of such theories and then only after that would have given his challenge for them.

 

[undeather]

18 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

I can't believe you made me do the Google search of his proofs. You should do it yourself if you're really interested in his proofs. But here's one I was able to find. 

https://saemobilus.sae.org/articles/lynchpin-a-novel-geometry-modular-tangential-omnidirectional-flight-01-16-03-0018#view

 

What has this to do with anything?
This is a paper about drone design using a particular geometric approach. It doesn't even do anything special.
Here is a video of that thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO33PNYhjFg&ab_channel=ChristianMolter
How is this proof of ANY of his claims? 
 

Edited May 27 by undeather

[Salvijus]

29 minutes ago, undeather said:

What has this to do with anything?
This is a paper about drone design using a particular geometric approach. It doesn't even do anything special.
How is this proof of ANY of his claims? 

Ugh... Why do I have to be the one defending his ideas.... Howard should do it himself. While talking to some scientists. And the rest of us should just be quiet and watch the outcome. 

But I believe just by watching the Joe Rogan podcast alone. That these are the only drones that can spin in all 4 directions around its axis. Normal drones cannot do that. 

And the type of science and theories used here are very different from convention science. 

Again... Howard should be the one explaining all this not me. I don't qualify to talk about it. 

Edited May 27 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

26 minutes ago, undeather said:

How is this proof of ANY of his claims? 

His inventions are based on a new model of understanding reality and physics. And if these inventions are actually legit. It proves that his new model of understanding reality is also legit. 

Edited May 27 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

13 minutes ago, undeather said:

What has this to do with anything?
This is a paper about drone design using a particular geometric approach. It doesn't even do anything special.
Here is a video of that thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO33PNYhjFg&ab_channel=ChristianMolter
How is this proof of ANY of his claims? 
 

In case I did a bad job explaining what's so special about his inventions. Here's a video of his drones. 

But seriously. Stop asking me all these scientific questions. I don't qualify to speak for Howard. 

Edited May 27 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

16 minutes ago, zurew said:

bunch of ways to do that

Maybe the current method his using of drawing attention is going to work aswell. 

Edited May 27 by Salvijus

[zurew]

11 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Only those who are neutral about it and want to see genuine exploration over proposed theories are in a healthy position imo. 

There are arguably infinite different ways to give an explanation for a certain phenomena or for the laws, so any of those could be "genuinely explored", but because we have finite time and resources we need to choose which one to explore and which one is worthy to explore.

That "worthiness" part is on the challenger to establish.

 

3 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

His inventions are based on new model of understanding reality and physics. And if these inventions are actually legit. It proves that his new model of understanding reality is also legit. 

That wouldn't follow from that. He would first needs to establish why would his model be impossible under the current mainstream theories of science