5 ms·

If you are so smart, why do you engage in evasive actions like this? I am calling you out, you fast talking egomaniac coward, bring that big brain out of hidin

If you are so smart, why do you engage in evasive actions like this? I am calling you out, you fast talking egomaniac coward, bring that big brain out of hiding and show off its real power: state clearly and explicitly, precisely what is incorrect in that comment. And while you're at it: pay special attention to the final sentence in the comment you linked. Is it not rather perfect for the situation we are in? Oh I would love to get into the mind of one of you people, even for 5 minutes just to see what it is like...would it be something like psychedelics, or would it be even weirder? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%...

lisper 3y ago
OK, I will lay this out for you. You wrote: > It isn't that science cannot, it is that they do not. the referent for which was: > You really believe that the question of human fallibility is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. So you claimed that science does not inquire into human fallibility. That is manifestly false, as a simple web search for "scientific inquiry into human fallibility" will reveal: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=scientific+inquiry+into+human+fallibility https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=scientific+inquiry+into+hum... Here is the first hit from that search when I do it: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/25152459211045930 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/25152459211045... It's a paper entitled "The Role of Human Fallibility in Psychological Research: A Survey of Mistakes in Data Management." That paper has 31 references. Oh, and one more thing before I go: > pay special attention to the final sentence in the comment you linked No, that's not the part that merits attention. This is: > people think science is the gold standard of reasoning, truth discovery, etc That's right, people do think that. You might want to give some thought as to why that is.
- mistermann 3y ago
  You're missing many things, but one in particular: curiosity. It was an impressive "State opinion as fact, declare victory" mic drop though (the ending in particular, could it get any better). What do you give yourself, a 10/10? I must say though, I do like the paper you picked as an example!
  - lisper 3y ago
    Against my better judgement, I am going to respond to this: you appear to be one of the least self-aware people I have ever interacted with. You literally asked for that smack-down: > I am calling you out, you fast talking egomaniac coward, bring that big brain out of hiding and show off its real power: state clearly and explicitly, precisely what is incorrect in that comment. So you really shouldn't be surprised when, again against my better judgement, I obliged you. I tried really hard to avoid this confrontation. I offered you a lets-agree-to-disagree olive branch not once but twice and you responded with ad hominems and insults. So I'm going to offer you one last piece of advice (again against my better judgement, because I think the truth is that you are beyond my ability to help): you can sometimes get away with being obnoxious on the internet, but it works a lot better if you don't do it at the same time that you put your profound ignorance and unwillingness to do your homework on proud display.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      Thank you for the feedback and wise counsel. I have one last question: the various things you state above in the form of facts, do you actually consider them to be exactly that, or have you been speaking casually/colloquially this whole time (as is the style of the era we are in)?
      - lisper 3y ago
        Hard to say without knowing more specifically what you are referring to. This has been a very long thread. But maybe this; https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/three-myths-about-scientific-method.html https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/three-myths-about-scient... will answer your question. See myth #3.
        mistermann 3y ago
        > Hard to say without knowing more specifically what you are referring to. Every single assertion of fact you made upstream in this conversation, or in the entire thread. You have an impressive Motte and Bailey, Dumb Farmer (or at least I hope, for your benefit) routine going on. If you would like, later I can go through the comments and choose some assertions you have made, and you can respond with proofs for each, which I will then critique. This seems like a fine way to demonstrate the superiority of your cognition, what do you think of the idea? Are you up for it? Can you participate without resorting to rhetoric and evasion? And regarding your link and the very clever ontology it is based on: science is not composed only of the scientific method, it is also composed of human scientists. And if one is to replace "the scientific method" with "scientists" in that piece, the truth value of all of the statements changes drastically. In my experience, scientists and their fan base don't like speaking with this level of precision, and will typically respond in a predictable manner, using predictable dismissive/evasive phrases, not unlike how a large language model behaves (which shouldn't be all that surprising if you put a bit of thought into it).

lisper 3y ago

OK, I will lay this out for you. You wrote: > It isn't that science cannot, it is that they do not. the referent for which was: > You really believe that the question of human fallibility is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. So you claimed that science does not inquire into human fallibility. That is manifestly false, as a simple web search for "scientific inquiry into human fallibility" will reveal: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=scientific+inquiry+into+human+fallibility https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=scientific+inquiry+into+hum... Here is the first hit from that search when I do it: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/25152459211045930 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/25152459211045... It's a paper entitled "The Role of Human Fallibility in Psychological Research: A Survey of Mistakes in Data Management." That paper has 31 references. Oh, and one more thing before I go: > pay special attention to the final sentence in the comment you linked No, that's not the part that merits attention. This is: > people think science is the gold standard of reasoning, truth discovery, etc That's right, people do think that. You might want to give some thought as to why that is.

mistermann 3y ago
You're missing many things, but one in particular: curiosity. It was an impressive "State opinion as fact, declare victory" mic drop though (the ending in particular, could it get any better). What do you give yourself, a 10/10? I must say though, I do like the paper you picked as an example!
- lisper 3y ago
  Against my better judgement, I am going to respond to this: you appear to be one of the least self-aware people I have ever interacted with. You literally asked for that smack-down: > I am calling you out, you fast talking egomaniac coward, bring that big brain out of hiding and show off its real power: state clearly and explicitly, precisely what is incorrect in that comment. So you really shouldn't be surprised when, again against my better judgement, I obliged you. I tried really hard to avoid this confrontation. I offered you a lets-agree-to-disagree olive branch not once but twice and you responded with ad hominems and insults. So I'm going to offer you one last piece of advice (again against my better judgement, because I think the truth is that you are beyond my ability to help): you can sometimes get away with being obnoxious on the internet, but it works a lot better if you don't do it at the same time that you put your profound ignorance and unwillingness to do your homework on proud display.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    Thank you for the feedback and wise counsel. I have one last question: the various things you state above in the form of facts, do you actually consider them to be exactly that, or have you been speaking casually/colloquially this whole time (as is the style of the era we are in)?
    - lisper 3y ago
      Hard to say without knowing more specifically what you are referring to. This has been a very long thread. But maybe this; https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/three-myths-about-scientific-method.html https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/three-myths-about-scient... will answer your question. See myth #3.
      - mistermann 3y ago
        > Hard to say without knowing more specifically what you are referring to. Every single assertion of fact you made upstream in this conversation, or in the entire thread. You have an impressive Motte and Bailey, Dumb Farmer (or at least I hope, for your benefit) routine going on. If you would like, later I can go through the comments and choose some assertions you have made, and you can respond with proofs for each, which I will then critique. This seems like a fine way to demonstrate the superiority of your cognition, what do you think of the idea? Are you up for it? Can you participate without resorting to rhetoric and evasion? And regarding your link and the very clever ontology it is based on: science is not composed only of the scientific method, it is also composed of human scientists. And if one is to replace "the scientific method" with "scientists" in that piece, the truth value of all of the statements changes drastically. In my experience, scientists and their fan base don't like speaking with this level of precision, and will typically respond in a predictable manner, using predictable dismissive/evasive phrases, not unlike how a large language model behaves (which shouldn't be all that surprising if you put a bit of thought into it).