5 ms·
His primary list of accomplishments should relieve some of your fears. That much serial entrepreneurship places him securely in the 'comfortable' category, and
by crystalis 16y ago
His primary list of accomplishments should relieve some of your fears. That much serial entrepreneurship places him securely in the 'comfortable' category, and his continuing work seems to clear him from a profiteering motive. His transhumanist ambitions indicate a deep and sincere belief in his method, which is possibly more than most other dietitians can avow. I think the largest problem with the disconnect is the nature of his interest - severe long term results that are difficult to support with standard research methods or testimonials.
- philwelch 16y agoMany pseudoscientific cranks are honest, earnest, and not at all profiteering. But they are still pseudoscientific cranks. What defines a crank is the practice of developing and advocating strong opinions despite a lack of supporting evidence, or in the face of conflicting evidence.
- crystalis 16y agoI'm not sure what you have to gain by planting a 'pseudoscientific crank' flag in a response here, but I'll address it anyways. I don't follow Kurzweil's diet, and I haven't read any of his books, but to the best of my knowledge, Kurzweil invokes no chakras and no crystals. He doesn't promise unrealistic weight gain, and he doesn't seem to be advertising any harmful methods. He may be guilty of overselling the possible benefits of synthesizing several positive regimens (e.g., light exercise, low glycemic index, antioxidants, nutritional supplements), but, with the exception of alkaline water, I don't see any cogent criticism or glaring 'lack of supporting evidence'. Would you care to supply a context for your tar, or did you just have an agenda?
- philwelch 16y agoI only meant to suggest that whether or not someone is intentionally "profiteering off of people's fears and ignorance" in andreyf's words isn't necessarily the best criterion by which to judge their credibility--and conversely, that your defenses of Kurzweil's honesty and earnestness miss the underlying point.
- crystalis 16y agoYour underlying point is that he isn't credible; andreyf's point is about profiteering. It's possible he wanted information on credibility, rather than the stated profiteering, but your paternalism has yet to supply any actual answers.
- philwelch 16y agoMy underlying point isn't about Kurzweil at all. It's that sincerity doesn't excuse being a professional crank. Amateur cranks are bad enough, but professional cranks do benefit from "people's fears and ignorance" at their expense, no matter how sincere and well-intentioned they may be.
- crystalis 16y agoBut this isn't about cranks. It's not even about Kurzweil! It's about Singularitarians that explicitly aren't Kurzweil, even. You haven't made any points germane to the conversation here. If you'd like to place some actual points regarding Kurzweil as a crank, or tar all things Singularity with the crank label, or find an actual topic about cranks, your words may be well placed, but until then, your Gricean maxims may need some work.
- andreyf 16y agoShit, sorry. I really tried to phrase it in a way to avoid trolling, but it looks like sometimes it's just in my blood. I'm sure Kurzweil is a deeply honest and righteous man. I'm just conflicted at how the medical establishment (that is, all the doctors I've talked to), don't seem to advocate nearly the amount of supplements he does, by several orders of magnitude. Is Kurzweil really that far ahead of this character we imagine called "modern medical institutions", or is he just wrong (as Aristotle was about astrology)? It's hard to question whether or not you're wrong when you're making lots of money one way or another.
- crystalis 16y ago