5 ms·
It's sad this crank gets support from so many influential people. I guess since the death of science journalism they embrace whatever is out there.
by Numberwang 14y ago
It's sad this crank gets support from so many influential people. I guess since the death of science journalism they embrace whatever is out there.
- maeon3 14y agoThis crank is 3 or 4 orders of magnitude more accomplished than you! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil#section_1 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil#section_1 Stop insulting yourself.
- rimantas 14y agoSo he is 3 or 4 orders of magnitude more accomplished crank.
- Numberwang 14y agoIronically the kind of measurement he would appreciate as sound science.
- batista 14y agoAccomplished and crank are not at opposite ends... Especially when you are accomplished at complete irrelevant fields that one you are blathering about...
- lukifer 14y agoYou're more than welcome to disagree with Kurzweil and his theories, but at least do it properly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Di...
- Numberwang 14y agoIt's been done to death. Just as with Deepak Chopra or climate science denialists there is no need to outline every argument at every point.
- lukifer 14y agoSo everybody agrees, except for the people who don't, who must therefore also be cranks (or something else equally dismissive). I don't care how "settled" the science is on any subject; it doesn't necessitate diluting the discourse. I'm no climate science denier, but I'm still willing to listen to an opposing argument on that topic or any other without resorting to ad hominem. If you don't have something of value to add, please close the browser tab and get back to work.
- Numberwang 14y agoHave you ever read Nostradamus with an open mind? Surely you build on previous knowledge when you try to make sense of the world?
- lukifer 14y agoIt's willingness to deviate from prior mental models and frames of reference that can yield unexpected breakthroughs. Quantum physics also used to seem crazy (actually, it still does). Equating Kurzweil with Nostradamus is highly exaggerative (I don't recall the latter employing any mathematical models), but I would listen to anything Nostradamus-related based on the arguments and evidence, not the name. The real issue is that HN strives for a higher standard of discussion, and ad hominems fall below that standard whether or not they are true. Snarky name-calling should stay on reddit. (PS: Love the username.)
- vixen99 14y agoget's?
- Numberwang 14y agofixed.