Loquebantur

6 ms·

61.
AI Boosts Research Careers, but Flattens Scientific Discovery(spectrum.ieee.org)
3 points by Loquebantur 9mo ago|1 comments
62.
by Loquebantur 9mo ago
“We’ve become so obsessed with the number of papers [that scientists publish] that we are not thinking about what it is that we are researching—and in what ways that contributes to a better understanding of reality, of health, and of the na
63.
by Loquebantur 11mo ago
You invoke magic when you pretend, those "tests" were somehow "proof" instead of merely evidence against the claim. Argument from authority is no valid scientific approach, neither is you putting up a straw-man (your cla
64.
by Loquebantur 11mo ago
Being lazy incurs costs. With regard to "conspiracies" that cost is explicitly vulnerability to them. Neither "chemtrails", "UFOs&aliens" nor "telepathy" appear particularly "plausible".
65.
by Loquebantur 11mo ago
Your assessment of "magical thinking" being impervious to criticism funnily applies just the same to the attitude exhibited here regarding "fringed" ideas like "telepathy". The "Telepathy Tapes" ar
66.
by Loquebantur 11mo ago
There are many "invisible" things that exist. "Telepathy" isn't "unprovable". The "Telepathy Tapes" are evidence in favor of telepathy (It appears, you confuse "evidence" with &quo
67.
by Loquebantur 11mo ago
A podcast manages to convince you, but you cannot tell what exactly the issue is that renders "anything even adjacent" logically impossible? What about the possibility of being fooled the other way around, along with the majority?
68.
by Loquebantur 11mo ago
Ironically, scientism is also a manifestation of "magical thinking": Going through ritualistic motions of scientific appearances without actual understanding, getting positive feedback from the multitudes being just as incompe
69.
by Loquebantur 2y ago
I find it downright perverse to call genocide "retaliatory" and the act of covering it up "normal".
70.
by Loquebantur 2y ago
It's certainly not true for the "authorities" in question here. Meaning, they indeed aren't "authoritative", as you would have it. You essentially refuse to seriously check for that. I guess, because you have s
71.
by Loquebantur 2y ago
The point here is people succumbing to confirmation bias and circular reasoning. That article is no simple 'clickbait'-nonsense. Objectively, importance is judged via cumulative consequences over time. The event of contact with no
72.
by Loquebantur 2y ago
"Reputation" is a crude social heuristic. It's also authority in disguise.
73.
by Loquebantur 2y ago
Ironically, the DoD has internally concluded those UAPs to be AI controlled craft and investors are already lining up, demanding access to siloed intellectual property concerning recovered technology. While people here are busy mocking the
74.
by Loquebantur 2y ago
Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. It is particularly fallacious when the topic is 'scrutinizing actions of authorities'. I find it highly worrisome, people apparently prefer to be told what to think by "authoritie
75.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
Where do you propose your "limitless" supply of toys to fit within the finite confines of earth? Even if you could "spread out to the stars", earth stays a closed system. It can take only a finite amount of pollution, wh
76.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
No, it's not. The "virtualizable" part of the economy is limited. While it gets digitized, the remaining part continues to grow exponentially, rendering the former irrelevant. The primary problem here is the generation of e
77.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
Yes, we do. For all practical purposes, earth's gravity well serves as a boundary for material resources at scale. More importantly, the input of polluting material into earth's obviously very limited ecological system is limi
78.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
It is precisely the point that in reality, the system under consideration is finite. Consequently, you cannot find "economic substitutes" forever, as they are finite and limited themselves. One central restriction here is the li
79.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
You are engaging in self-delusion here. The point of these papers isn't to make precise predictions of "the day civilizational collapse occurs" nor does it merely "illustrate some complex relationships". It is to sh
80.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
You are misrepresenting the science here. This wasn't "just a PhD thesis" in particular. Also, your take of this to be "sensationalism" is very odd. The danger of imminent tipping points turning "climate chang
81.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
This is a common misconception. The US system of state secrets for example is enormous, and while leaks do occur, they are negligible compared to what is kept hidden. There are multiple tricks employable, one is to keep any single collabora
82.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
The really weird thing though is, how people defend their preconceptions with "conspiracy theories", invoking stigma and thereby inhibiting further inquiry. Which is unfortunate, as the actual reasons are at times much more intere
83.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
Yes, but those polymaths are rare obviously. Wherefore I mentioned how the same might be accomplished without them, simply by listenening and explaining to each other. Of course, if you assume individual experts to be really entrenched in
84.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
Whataboutism very much, but to entertain you: Yes, what about them? You conflate individual discomforts with numerous people actually dying or suffering lasting physical damages. Who are you to pretend your personal idiosyncrasies and wei
85.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
Background radiation is categorically different than ingesting/inhaling radioactive substances with the latter many orders of magnitude more dangerous. The claim, nuclear testing related increases in radiation exposure not being releva
86.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
If you were right, scientific knowledge would be inexistent and scientific opinion meaningless. To come to an agreement among experts just like among anyone else one has to adhere to some obvious(?) rules. Everybody having their own opinion
87.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
Society is meant to overcome individual shortcomings via constructive collaboration. Adding individual strengths, not weaknesses, necessitates adherence to some rules in open communication. Science should know explicitly how to do that.
88.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
"Policy makers", aka the government, should be weighing actions depending on their outcomes as projected by expert consensus. That weighing should be to optimize according to a pre-defined value system, which of course is a m
89.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
Humans look for "strong leadership" whenever they feel threatened, respectively have an uncertain outlook onto the future. Authoritarian states are the result of a societal phase-change, occurring when a majorty feels this way. Th
90.
by Loquebantur 3y ago
If "social" media wasn't factually asocial by allowing anonymity, sockpuppet farms at least would have to usurp some real body's identity. The structure of human society being hierarchical in nature (the 90-9-1 rule ment

More ›