mistermann

8 ms·

61.
by mistermann 2y ago
Expectations may be part of the problem.
62.
by mistermann 2y ago
Not entirely I bet! I think of science in much the same way that you think of other disciplines.
63.
by mistermann 2y ago
I'm a rather reasonable "on the right" person and arguing about science is literally my hobby, there are few funner things in the world imho.
64.
by mistermann 2y ago
Be careful to not mistake "theory doesn't replicate" with "theory is not true [in whole or in part]".
65.
by mistermann 2y ago
This is so shockingly normative, it almost feels like you (or someone else) are putting me on. Have you wondered why it is so incredibly easy for LLM's to emulate Humans?
66.
by mistermann 2y ago
> No, not at all. If this was true, you would be able to DEMONSTRATE that you can actually consider criticism of your claims, and take questions seriously, and answer them. I believe that you quite literally cannot do that. For starter
67.
by mistermann 2y ago
I think it is very interesting how people talk about science as if it is (near) perfect, and that this perfection passes on to those who are believers in it. I wonder what the causality is behind so many people ending up with this same conc
68.
by mistermann 2y ago
I think it would be fun to see if it is possible to get the very popular notion that the Wakefield paper is the only source of all concerns about vaccines and autism out of the minds of "rational" Normatives. I would be surprised
69.
by mistermann 2y ago
Two can play at that game: "I declare myself the victor!" Wow that is very easy, maybe that's why it's so popular.
70.
by mistermann 2y ago
I'm more interested in broad capabilities, not only just epistemic soundness.
71.
by mistermann 2y ago
> Are you talking about the platform rules, or merely what the community thinks? Both. > (e.g. lwhalen, who is engaging in blatant emotional manipulation and logical fallacies). Is it not absolutely amazing! And I bet he's other
72.
by mistermann 2y ago
> Look, I understand what you're getting at regarding epistemological foundations. > accepting base axioms necessary for any kind of knowledge (like "my sensory experiences generally correspond to reality") The irony. Y
73.
by mistermann 2y ago
I think we are very much on the same general page!
74.
by mistermann 2y ago
The notion that rejecting the scientific method is necessarily bad thing is epistemically unsound, and a rather provocative topic.
75.
by mistermann 2y ago
Do you have Faith that the sensation that you can read minds at scale is genuine? I do not need a lecture on religion or rationality from you, thanks. It is Your Kind that keeps these habits going strong, not mine.
76.
by mistermann 2y ago
Note: reasons to think something are not a constant over time or geography.
77.
by mistermann 2y ago
Also David Bohm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm
78.
by mistermann 2y ago
> You're parsing semantics rather than engaging with the core point. a) You are engaging in rhetoric. b) "parsing semantics" is not the win you think it is - we are in the age of AI, man. People now know what the term mea
79.
by mistermann 2y ago
> Friendly reminder that this is HackerNews; nobody is here (nor cares) to read your incoherent, unwelcome religious preach nor to argue religion - at all. Be careful, Faith comes in many forms, and in many metaphysical frameworks (scien
80.
by mistermann 2y ago
Do you believe that to be optimal gameplay?
81.
by mistermann 2y ago
Do the HN guidelines explicitly outlaw proselytization of specific metaphysical frameworks? Because there is more than one person engaged in the activity.
82.
by mistermann 2y ago
> You are backing into a very common fallacy, Pascal's Wager. Had I made an assertion (about the object level point of contention) or even offered relevant advice (I didn't), you would have a fine point. But I did not. You o
83.
by mistermann 2y ago
That on certain topics, logic trumps rhetoric. That on certain other topics, rhetoric trumps logic. And if one should point this out, guess which one is used in response? :) (To be fair to HN: this is true of all such communities to differi
84.
by mistermann 2y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_w...
85.
by mistermann 2y ago
>response would be "government overreach!" on one side and "what about threatened species X that thrives in the sparse desert?" on the other. And if you did get such a project approved Maybe what is needed is a projec
86.
by mistermann 2y ago
I am perfectly fine with it. The HN (and other "intellectual" online spaces) guidelines are a big part of The Problem.
87.
by mistermann 2y ago
> The vast majority of my belief system is or can trivially be peer-reviewed and reproduced. Not possible for you to know (more Faith...watch out for misdirection though). > but it's far less egregious than "sky-daddy says I
88.
by mistermann 2y ago
[flagged]
89.
by mistermann 2y ago
A bigger problem that rarely gets noticed is that "democracy" is a bit of a magical word: a) if you were to survey people for a meaning, answers would be all over the place, and many of them with technical untruths b) if you were
90.
by mistermann 2y ago
> It seems a stretch to call her antisemitic I often wonder what % of antisemitism is a consequence of overly enthusiastic accusations. Two (or much, much more) can play the imagination game.

More ›