4 ms·

I believe your analysis may be somewhat imperfect, I will endeavor to explain my reasoning. If you see flaws in my reasoning, I encourage you to point them out

I believe your analysis may be somewhat imperfect, I will endeavor to explain my reasoning. If you see flaws in my reasoning, I encourage you to point them out to me so I may sharpen my own logical tools. The way I see it, what you have presented is a narrative. It could be 100% correct, it could be 100% incorrect, and it could be somewhere in between. For the purposes of this exercise, let's assume it is true, or true enough. Once a person holds a narrative such as this in their mind, it subsequently facilitates the ability to make a broad range of very precise predictions, both of the future, and the unknown in general. But don't forget: your mind is producing predictions, but sometimes these predictions have the nasty side effect of not being distinguishable from facts. Fields like psychology, neurology, etc have done significant work studying the particulars of this odd behavior. Now, let's take an example of some predictions and think more rigorously: "If anyone knows what's going on and what will happen in the coming future, it's him. Know when to follow. You can question his motives and intentions, but you must recognize his superior knowledge and preparedness." I will clarify this a bit (please let me know if I've done this in a manner not to your liking): - Bill Gates has a demonstrated track record of exceptional skill in the domain of pandemics. - An event has occurred related to the domain of pandemics. - Therefore, it logically follows that Bill Gates is the person who knows what's going on regarding this event. - Therefore, it logically follows that Bill Gates plans should be followed, in their entirety. Disclaimer: Yes, I do realize that I have taken the most uncharitable interpretation of your words possible, but that is my very point. I believe that if one desires to know the truth, uncharitable deconstruction of beliefs into discrete binary statements is the most valuable tool that humans have at our disposal. But rather than wield this impressive power in making the world a better place, it seems like instead people prefer to use it to engage in ideological arguments. Fiddling while Rome burns as they say. And yes, I too see many obvious criticisms/shortcomings of this approach (thinking about reality in a highly skilled manner is a bit complicated, go figure) - again, I present this as just one piece of an overall larger puzzle that humanity should realize is sitting right in front of us, and has been for generations. It's waiting to be solved, but first you have to acknowledge its existence. And finally, to be fair, you did note: "You can question his motives and intentions, but you must recognize his superior knowledge and preparedness". So, please think of this not as a criticism of you personally, but rather as an illustration of a larger generic principle.

broncin_buck 7y ago
Thank you for your response and noble (if socially naive) pursuit of truth / honesty. To be honest (in return), the main intent of my post above is to inform critical readers about the mentioned pandemic simulation that was carried out in October of 2019, and allow them to consider for themselves what that implies. Just informing / expanding the conversation. What people think about BG is irrelevant to me, I just saw that it was the topic being discussed here. :) *edit: also I deliberately took the extreme stance/tone (TRUST BILL) because it seems obviously absurd and contradicts bigger picture critical thinking. Speculative tone (which would've been more honest) is always rejected as weak. So I say "Trust Bill, because x," when I actually want to say, "are you aware of x?" By taking a stance I'm being dishonest and inflammatory but generating discussion / thought and hopefully avoiding censorship and outright dismissal due to existing biases. Sole intention is to expand the overton, generate thought / discussion / awareness of fact. No one else in these comments brought up E201 and many likely haven't heard of it, but it is worthy of consideration and some may find it interesting!
- mistermann 7y ago
  > Thank you for your response and noble (if socially naive) pursuit of truth / honesty. Technically, it only appears to be naivete. I am extremely cognizant of the fact that people don't think using logic or facts, or care comprehensively about what is actually true. > By taking a stance I'm being dishonest and inflammatory but generating discussion / thought and hopefully avoiding censorship and outright dismissal due to existing biases. Sole intention is to expand the overton, generate thought / discussion / awareness of fact. No one else in these comments brought up E201 and many likely haven't heard of it, but it is worthy of consideration and some may find it interesting! Kudos for your efforts, the more the better.

broncin_buck 7y ago

Thank you for your response and noble (if socially naive) pursuit of truth / honesty. To be honest (in return), the main intent of my post above is to inform critical readers about the mentioned pandemic simulation that was carried out in October of 2019, and allow them to consider for themselves what that implies. Just informing / expanding the conversation. What people think about BG is irrelevant to me, I just saw that it was the topic being discussed here. :) *edit: also I deliberately took the extreme stance/tone (TRUST BILL) because it seems obviously absurd and contradicts bigger picture critical thinking. Speculative tone (which would've been more honest) is always rejected as weak. So I say "Trust Bill, because x," when I actually want to say, "are you aware of x?" By taking a stance I'm being dishonest and inflammatory but generating discussion / thought and hopefully avoiding censorship and outright dismissal due to existing biases. Sole intention is to expand the overton, generate thought / discussion / awareness of fact. No one else in these comments brought up E201 and many likely haven't heard of it, but it is worthy of consideration and some may find it interesting!

mistermann 7y ago
> Thank you for your response and noble (if socially naive) pursuit of truth / honesty. Technically, it only appears to be naivete. I am extremely cognizant of the fact that people don't think using logic or facts, or care comprehensively about what is actually true. > By taking a stance I'm being dishonest and inflammatory but generating discussion / thought and hopefully avoiding censorship and outright dismissal due to existing biases. Sole intention is to expand the overton, generate thought / discussion / awareness of fact. No one else in these comments brought up E201 and many likely haven't heard of it, but it is worthy of consideration and some may find it interesting! Kudos for your efforts, the more the better.