3 ms·

You are no missing anything. Reputations in academy are not only made by being correct and inventive. You can go pretty far if you know how to dress-up bullshit

You are no missing anything. Reputations in academy are not only made by being correct and inventive. You can go pretty far if you know how to dress-up bullshit.

meepmorp 6y ago
I completely agree, and would only point out that the ability to get far on properly calibrated bullshit is a well established phenomenon throughout human history.
- namero999 6y ago
  But then the onus is on those who sense it to point out said bullshit.
  - hawkice 6y ago
    I mean, I just eat lunch while I read things, not sure why you think I've signed up to put a professional level effort into rolling my eyes at these guys.
  - hntrader 6y ago
    Burden of proof generally isn't on the skeptic.
    - namero999 6y ago
      I think there is a difference between a proof and the refutation of an argument. I expect proofs from scientific theories, and if a theory of consciousness would posit itself as scientific, I would be in perfect agreement with you that proofs or testable predictions should be provided. But I think here we are well into philosophy grounds, where neither proofs nor predictions are required. If that is the case, a philosophical claim needs to be actively rejected. I will admit that I still have to make my mind whether IIT is purely philosophy, purely scientific, or neither. Currently I don't think it's a theory of consciousness, rather just a model to "quantify" consciousness, without explaining its origin.
      - geophile 6y ago
        The author of TFA disagrees with you: "Most importantly, though, IIT is a scientific theory, unlike panpsychism."
  - geophile 6y ago
    See above. TFA claims that IIT is testable, but does not say anthing at all about a test that has been published, a test that has been done, a test that some research group is doing, a test that is being considered, a test that could be done given some scientific or technological development. Nothing.
- twobitshifter 6y ago
  See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
  - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
    I love when I run into this, because I actually took two classes taught by Dr Peter Boghossian, the first was Critical Thinking, the second was Atheism. Checking Portland State's course catalog, he's still teaching those classes. Oh, and as you might imagine, there was a pretty considerable amount of material that existed in both of those classes.

You are no missing anything. Reputations in academy are not only made by being correct and inventive. You can go pretty far if you know how to dress-up bullshit.

meepmorp 6y ago

I completely agree, and would only point out that the ability to get far on properly calibrated bullshit is a well established phenomenon throughout human history.

namero999 6y ago
But then the onus is on those who sense it to point out said bullshit.
- hawkice 6y ago
  I mean, I just eat lunch while I read things, not sure why you think I've signed up to put a professional level effort into rolling my eyes at these guys.
- hntrader 6y ago
  Burden of proof generally isn't on the skeptic.
  - namero999 6y ago
    I think there is a difference between a proof and the refutation of an argument. I expect proofs from scientific theories, and if a theory of consciousness would posit itself as scientific, I would be in perfect agreement with you that proofs or testable predictions should be provided. But I think here we are well into philosophy grounds, where neither proofs nor predictions are required. If that is the case, a philosophical claim needs to be actively rejected. I will admit that I still have to make my mind whether IIT is purely philosophy, purely scientific, or neither. Currently I don't think it's a theory of consciousness, rather just a model to "quantify" consciousness, without explaining its origin.
    - geophile 6y ago
      The author of TFA disagrees with you: "Most importantly, though, IIT is a scientific theory, unlike panpsychism."
- geophile 6y ago
  See above. TFA claims that IIT is testable, but does not say anthing at all about a test that has been published, a test that has been done, a test that some research group is doing, a test that is being considered, a test that could be done given some scientific or technological development. Nothing.
twobitshifter 6y ago
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
  I love when I run into this, because I actually took two classes taught by Dr Peter Boghossian, the first was Critical Thinking, the second was Atheism. Checking Portland State's course catalog, he's still teaching those classes. Oh, and as you might imagine, there was a pretty considerable amount of material that existed in both of those classes.