3 ms·
It'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.
by Numberwang 14y ago
It'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.)