knightoffaith

15 ms·

91.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
>The issue is, almost no secular thinker comes away from admitting those two honestly and then stays within the purely secular realm for very long. I'm not so sure about this, though it depends on what you mean by "purely secul
92.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
But what else is the secular world to do? Suppose you're right and we do need religion. Surely the solution isn't for atheists to pretend that religion is true, right? Even if they did, the psychological benefits of religion are p
93.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
No, I wouldn't. I'm just wondering if we have to accept the consequences for children or if there's some alternative solution.
94.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
Right, definitely wouldn't want that. But do we just have to accept the negative impact the internet can have on children as a necessary evil then?
95.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
>You seem to think of knowledge as something that has to be expressed in language to exist, whereas I do not. I think that's an independent issue. Whether or not beliefs must be linguistically expressible and whether or not values c
96.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
Public instances do offer this, and there's no need to sign up (I do this on public instances without an invidious account).
97.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
Oh, of course there's truth, and it's something to be concerned about. I just mean to say that philosophizing in a way cognizant of our status of living, acting things as opposed to truth-generating machines makes a lot of sense,
98.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
>to act Yes, that seems clear to me. >to reproduce No, that doesn't seem clear to me. I have no trouble imagining being perfectly tethered to the reality of life but having no plans to reproduce. Not that reproduction is a bad th
99.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
Yep, you're right, thank you. Definitely be sure to check "proxy videos" in preferences. An aside on invidious collecting data - I am a lot more comfortable with some random guy in Europe having my data than Google.
100.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
Yes, right, exactly, this is the kind of explanation that I've been saying is warranted spelling out. And there's a lot to discuss here - what does it even mean for a multitude of parallel universes to exist? why should we believe
101.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
>cryptocurrency that can't be traced Monero is still going on strong, as far as I know.
102.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
>Pure speculation. But saying that the constants are what they are not being a very low probability event isn't pure speculation? Saying that the state of affairs can only possibly be what they are isn't pure speculation? &gt
103.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
I think it's not a bad idea to overestimate the power of the government to track you; the common wisdom on the internet to make this assumption is probably a good thing so people are motivated to be as safe as possible. On the other ha
104.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
At first glance (2) seems plausible, no? Given that there's an apparently narrow range in which certain universal/cosmological constants lie, outside of which life (possibly the universe itself in the way we know it) would be impo
105.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
Well, I don't know if there's any way to be absolutely anonymous on the internet. It seems to me that there's still good reason to prefer using invidious on an instance used by many people as opposed to youtube directly. Ca
106.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
For those who have not already heard of it, check out invidious: https://invidious.io/ A list of public instances (which you probably want to use if you're concerned about being identified) here: https://doc
107.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
>As I understand it, it is that if various natural constants had values other than those we observe, either life as we know it, or even the universe itself, could not exist. This is just a fact, no? The fine-tuning argument is something
108.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
>it's all the same Yes, in the sense that they point towards a creator of the universe. But intelligent design theory is more readily dismissed as anti-scientific nonsense, while the fine-tuning argument is not. Since your original
109.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
Sure, in terms of evolutionary "purpose" (which is not really purpose, just the way we make sense of what evolution is doing---we know that evolution doesn't have some goal in the sense that it is an agent whose will is orien
110.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
Don't know where you got that from.
111.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
Do you have a pithy response to Hume's argument against miracles (e.g. in the case of the resurrection, that any naturalistic explanation not involving resurrection for the historical evidence, no matter how unlikely, is still more lik
112.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
Do you have any thoughts on responses to Popperian falsifiability e.g. those from Kuhn and Feyerabend? The criterion of falsifiability doesn't seem to be a very popular idea in philosophy of science anymore.
113.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
>My point was just that proponents of so-called "intelligent design" sometimes try to create the impression that it is not itself a form of creationism, but it very much is. Not exactly the same as young earth creationism or an
114.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
>This is a variant of a common creationist argument, often promoted by those who prefer the term "intelligent design" to "creationism." But so-called "intelligent design" is just a variant of hard-core creat
115.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
Is there good reason to believe that this is what is really meant by "I am who I am" and isn't just Christians reading philosophical ideas back into the OT? (I ask this actually because I remember Ratzinger raising this possi
116.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
Doesn't the "rigorous approach to seeking/knowing truth" seem kind of detached from the reality of life to you? It seems to me that humans are not just disembodied thinking things but agents that actually live in the re
117.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
I don't really understand. Is the article saying that how to find meaning in life is by rejecting grand narratives and finding meaning in small things? That sounds to me like saying that how to find meaning in life is by... finding mea
118.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
The issue with RCTs is that you can only run them under tight conditions for so long on humans, so it's difficult to measure long-term outcomes like lifespan. (Not to disagree with you on exercise. All data seems to point towards exerc
119.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
> What has been shown is the negative advantage minorities, impoverished, ESL, disabled people have when taking the test and the advantages that wealthy people who can pay for tutors have. How does this contradict the GP? This doesn&#x2
120.
by knightoffaith 3y ago
Interesting - did this work better than a single model? In general, do meta-ensembles work better? My sense was that just xgboost was the main winner of kaggle competitions.

More ›