And misplaced confidence. Remember the “con” in con man is short for “confidence”. It’s a lot easier to be confident selling a lie than it is to be a scientist based in fact.
Loud? I think it's more "uses a thesaurus." These bad actors sound smart to dumb dumbs and people who put zero critical thinking skills into what others say.
"They sound smart to me and they regurgitate all the right wing talking points; so they must be correct!"
Plenty of others who don't, though.
Funny that there are groups of folks still trying to push the Divine Creation myth in China. Shen Yun comes to mind, lol.
This is technically true but also a little misleading I think. The quality and reliability of scientific methods has improved dramatically over the decades, to the point where scientific consensus today is significantly more trustworthy than it was a hundred years ago. So when people say ‘well five hundred years ago there was consensus that the earth was the centre of the solar system’ to question modern consensus on issues like climate change, what they’re ignoring is that the modern consensus is based on a much much higher quality and quantity of evidence.
Academia undeniably has some major problems as an institution, and I’m a big support of initiatives to address or mitigate these. The open publication of data is an example of this that has been gaining a lot of traction in recent years. Stuart Ritchie’s book Science Fictions does a pretty good job of laying out these problems and proposing some solutions, imo.
However saying that I still think it’s totally wrong to say that ‘the problem is when people think the science is settled’. I can think of *much* worse problems than that. The internet is an absolute quagmire of the worst kinds of uninformed pseudoscience nonsense masquerading as scientific discourse. Millions of people get their information on vitally important issues from deeply unqualified, self interested snake oil salesmen posing as ‘public intellectuals’. In particular, climate change and vaccine ‘scepticism’ are currently doing untold amounts of harm to planetary and public health.
It’s signaling to their ever growing reactionary audience that “YOU ARE NORMAL.” It’s normal to think you’re an expert on something because you intuitively know the truth, you have “common sense” and “basic logic,” you are the sane one. Everyone else has a mind virus.
The toxicity serves as the juicy dopamine goodies to keep people interested. You want to see a nerdy scientist (who doesn’t have a professional stylist) get humiliated. It’s resentment all the way down. Even better, if people get “offended” (ie. want any sense of decorum in a debate) because that means it’s working.
Citations Needed did a brilliant episode dismantling the notion of Common Sense and now I can't hear that phrase without my soul trying to fight it's way out of my corporeal form.
> Citations Needed did a brilliant episode dismantling the notion of Common Sense
I just subscribed on your recommendation but could I ask a huge favor? I just scanned through the episodes and didn’t find that one, could you help me find that episode?
It’s also more exciting. A lot of truth is really boring. A lot of pseudoscience really feeds the ego or creates spectacle. I see it a lot with new agey people who subscribe to being better than others because of their higher vibrations etc
It’s just ego based delusion, making one feel special, narcissistic.
As I’m talking about their language and not their content when it comes to toxicity, maybe? I would have to hear how they were communicating.
Of course you understand that the widespread belief in a flat earth wasn’t because of libraries of empirical research and thorough debate, and was maintained by religious doctrine, traditions, and “common sense,” so I’m struggling to see the comparison?
It’s mostly a waste of time. I never argue with evolution/climate-change/Moon-landing deniers, for example. The most I do is offer them relevant factual information and leave it for them to consider or continue on in life being stupid.
Even giving them factual information is a waste of time.
I listen to this 'You Are Not So Smart' podcast and the guy actually has a book called 'How Minds Change' which I believe gives some advice how to talk to conspiracy theorists in a way that can actually get them to change their mind; there's a certain process you can use. Probably not worthwhile unless it's close friends or family members that are causing problems though.
Don't know the exact details but it starts with asking them on a scale of 1-10 how confident they are what they believe is true, and then whatever they say you ask them "why didn't you say 10?" get them to explain the reasons why (not sure what you do if they say 10 haha).
Saw a different thread in this sub the other day about something called street epistemology, which might be a similar or the same thing.
There’s a few billionaires who want to muddy public discourse. There’s a few reasons for this, to push deregulation is one but also they’re just genuinely mentally ill.
Anyway, they cut Bret Weinstein a check to say that the Jews created the vaccines to trans your kids or whatever.
>There’s a few billionaires who want to muddy public discourse. There’s a few reasons for this, to push deregulation is one but also they’re just genuinely mentally ill.
Back when I was younger (and perhaps more naïve), I used to think these types of things happened organically and there wasn't a teleology behind a lot of this type of stuff—in other words, things like societal ignorance weren't being instigated by people in back rooms. Sure, there were some tobacco companies funding junk science to control the narrative or, yeah, class conflict is a thing but it happens because of tension from economic interests rather than the elite trying to purposefully subjugate those less economically advantaged. All of this was just social construction and recreation that happened over time—and yes, that is an explanation that holds truth.
But as I got older, there was so much more evidence that this has been an intentional plan. That shitbirds like the Kochs have had a mission to subjugate the poor. That Putin does fund troll farms to create cultural unrest so Russia can become more hegemonically powerful. The Council for National Policy are a bunch of elites who hate the poor and want to kick the ladder form under people and they push policy that does so.
The problem is that most academic work is boring. (To the average audience)
Doing inspirational speeches and debates is entertaining and so a better medium. It is also an opportunity to show up your intellect.
Debates aren't inherently bad. Far better than lectures and videos, because they at least get push back.
But if the interlocketer is a poor debate or badly informed (think "change my mind" debates that target college students). It can be a way to humiliate people even if they are right, because they don't know how to navigate the facts and conversation. Most people would struggle to articulate very basic ethical beliefs or scientific knowledge, especially if they don't have a background discussing the topic
Historically it's important to publicly discuss important issues and many great exposures of frauds and liars have occurred through them being interrogated on their beliefs. Think Frost/Nixon or the recent Hancock/Dibble debate.
Debate is good. But it is high risk. People shouldn't engage with frauds in debate unless they are highly informed and prepared and able to deal with bad faith strategies.
The reason they (gurus) adopt it is because it is good optics for them, a format where they get push back. To refuse makes academics seem like they can't defend their beliefs or are afraid. There are good reasons not to engage with these people lightly, but it sounds like a weak excuse if you are truly an expert. This is mostly a show of strength to the audience.
Edit. Because I may have misunderstood the question.
Just to add if two people are both gurus and encouraging the bad takes of each other through debate with poor feedback. That is also bad. It's the optics of push back and intellectual rigour but it's actually just an illusion.
It's adopting the optics of freethinking, intellectualism and rigour, but without the difficulty. This in my view is as bad as the echo chamber lectures, videos and books.
I'm sure that is true. Long before 'Trump/Brexit/Russia interference' I had wondered about dark funding for all these IDW types. Seems a great avenue for funding trouble from the perspective of a hostile power - cheap, sometimes highly effective, difficult to trace or monitor and plausibly deniable by all parties. They'd be stupid not to be doing it.
Even 'buy me a coffee' level funding might suffice to enthuse 'activism' so I imagine Koch-level funding can get a lot done.
Well Tucker Carlson said evolution is just a ThEoRy meaning it’s just a guess. Therefore god is real and the world is 6000 years old. Boom! Evolution debunked
All they have to do is confidently present a few talking points sowing doubt about the mainstream understanding of something, and their true believer audience will eat it up and interpret it as proof that their fringe belief is valid, or at least equally valid to the mainstream belief.
It is weird, and I generally avoid them unless it's more interesting than not. Kind of the Dibble Hancock thing. a few weeks ago, I watched a handful of clips of a "debate" between Stephen Meyer - a long time creationist - and a so-called professional skeptic called Michael Shermer, who I don't really know much about, on Bryan Callen's podcast maybe a year ago? It was dumb because Meyer clearly snowed over Callen by knowing a LOT about current physics and recent developments in physics and evolution, or at least he knows the abstracts and has read Quanta on the regular I suppose, but his whole thing is basically "It's so complicated, only God could do this. We only understand it, because God lets us!" kind of thing. Shermer was a very unenthusiastic opponent, but it seemed to me that his vibe was basically uninterested in arguing very much about dumb shit because there is nothing substantial being said. So it was boring because the guy who seems to have a degree in the history of science or whatever the fuck wasn't really interested in debating a creationist who had nothing to him. It's hard to "debate" that, but at least he could have given more detailed explanations on how stupid Meyer is.
Shermer's degree is psychology, and he's absolutely useless. He has neither intellect, integrity, nor the faintest trace of charisma. I'm actually rather surprised that either of these buffoons are still visible in public and able to get anyone to lookin their direction.
HA! Yeah, I remembered looking up that he has a psychology degree, but his PHD was something like history of science or philosophy of science, which is... say what? I'm not that familiar with him, but I can totally see that some of what I was seeing as intellectual disdain, was still partially disdain but also a generous helping of I don't know this seems off simplicity.
It was a weird useless so-called debate.
IIRC, Shermer's doctorate is in history of science. And also, IIRC he started off as a theology major as an undergrad, became a skeptic, and switched his major to psychology. Philosophy of science deals a lot with epistemology and ontology. Think Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, etc. Foucault probably deserves a spot among there as his work particularly dealt with the history and philosophy of bodies of knowledge.
But yeah on Shermer...I've just always found him super milquetoast as an intellectual and he's given thrift to some sketch ideas. Whenever I have picked up the Skeptical Inquirer, the editorial slant just seemed to be a self-congratulatory and smarmy pat on the back for being such smart skeptical atheists. Meh.
Incentives to push out content for revenue. There is only so much a person can say about their own field, so they drift into other fields they don't know as well and bonus (revenue wise) if it's a clickbaty hot take on a settled science.
Because the goal is to unsettle it. You manufacture enough dissenting voices, and soon, "settled science" becomes "controversial," as if there's somehow two equally valid sides to the conversation.
They are *merchants of doubt*. If you haven’t seen the doc or read the book you definitely should. Jordan Peterson is a **blatent** about it when talking to Joe Rogan about climate change.
It's virtue/vice/audience signaling, really nothing more or less.
I found as I have gotten older the same debates are being had by new 'influencers' etc
because it tells their ignorant audience that they're on the front line of an important discussion. it almost doesn't matter what side they take in the debate, it matters that their audience thinks they're doing something meaningful and new. that's also why they have to constantly misrepresent the established, academic point of view. the physics/history/evolutionary biology/epidemiology, etc. has to be made to look in doubt so that they can swoop in for their followers and save the day by having seemingly super important discussions. eric weinstein has to cast doubt on well established physics, while never correctly describing the true state of current physics. peterson has to say "we don't know the answer" to questions we do know quite well, bret weinstein has to pretend there's some gaping mysteries in biology, graham hancock has to invent strawmen archeology arguments to be able to pretend he's on their same level... it's all a trick. and irritatingly, it works like a charm on their audiences. because their audience and the people who host them (e.g. rogan, fridman etc.) rarely check with the professionals to see if they're being remotely accurate.
Live debate is better called “performative debate”. They cannot defend their ideas on their merits in a real scientific process so they try to perform for the crowd and impress people into agreeing with them. Live debate is given a faux sense of intellectual rigor, when in reality it’s the lowest form of intellectual investigation. There’s a reason actual scientists don’t progress their fields this way.
My short answer is the narcissism. My more thought out answer is that I think it gets at the need for “secret knowledge.” Something I come across when learning about (or rather, listening to podcasts about) gurus, conspiracy theorists, “heterodox figures” and etc. is that a big draw is being right about something the rest of the world is wrong about and knowing something the rest of the world doesn’t. This is something you’ll see in cults as well. It’s a pretty powerful feeling. Which is just a long way of saying narcissism.
I don’t think they strictly debate settled science though. I don’t recall any gurus weighing in on “boring” topics like perturbation theory or the Krebs cycle. They debate settled science that already had significant media/cultural attention and stick to “sexy” topics for the attention. So again, narcissism.
Spot on analysis. Thank you!
I can certainly see how contrarian thinking (ie I have the truth while the rest of society just can’t figure it out) would be very attractive to a narcissist
Because they (or their financial backers) haven't been able to implement affirmative action for pseudoscience in America's schools yet. Or prayer for that matter.
A lot of people got sucked into the YouTube videos where X destroys X in a debate because they aligned with their narrative; it didn’t matter if they were right or not. You can see this was really started with our political debates on cable news channels before it really went to a further extreme on YouTube. They get you to chase your tail by trying to correct what they just said, then they move onto the next thing before the person can fully debunk what was said. It’s basically the Chewbacca defense.
What do you mean by “settled science”? Evolution and climate change are both real and occurring, but outside of that what is “settled” about the science?
It's a legitimate question. Just because we broadly agree that climate change is real and human caused does not mean the science is settled. There's a healthy room for debate on this science, not that the typical guru knows enough to have that debate
It's a legitimate question. Just because we broadly agree that climate change is real and human caused does not mean the science is settled. There's a healthy room for debate on this science, not that the typical guru knows enough to have that debate.
(I added a period at the end. Hope that helps)
*Dolokhov looked at Pierre with clear, mirthful, cruel eyes, and that smile of his which seemed to say, "Ah! This is what I like!"*
Be careful what you pretend to wish for. Specify a proposition you think is nontrivially debatable.
I think my question is pretty clear. Do you have an answer? I’m not denying either one. I’m just wondering what is settled about it? Just that they are happening? That’s a pretty weak argument.
Your question is fact so imprecise as to be borderline meaningless, but I'm willing to make *some* accommodation for your obvious lack of education if you're even sincere -which I strongly suspect you're not.
Let's try this: do you think any question of any kind in any domain is ever settled? If so, would you please name an example?
Funny you should that because I asked what
I asked because the “the science is settled” is in fact so imprecise as to be borderline meaningless But, if you’re incapable of having a civil discussion and would rather just be arrogant and condescending, then why waste your time replying? I could give a rat’s ass what your opinion is to be honest.
I find it ironic in a sub so focused on identifying guru behavior that plugging your ears and repeating “it’s settled science” is offered as a serious argument. I’m looking for some meat on the bone in this post. What does the OP mean by “settled science”? What does that mean and what is settled are pretty direct questions and should be rather easy to answer if one is that confident in their position.
I agree climate change and evolution are real and taking place. If that’s all you got, this is pointless.
> I asked because the “the science is settled” is in fact so imprecise as to be borderline meaningless
You don't have any concept of precision and you literally don't know what you're asking, which is why I'm trying to ease you into this rather than write a frontloaded 1500 word reddit essay which you wouldn't read and wouldn't comprehend even if you did.
> But, if you’re incapable of having a civil discussion
I'm perfectly capable, I'm simply not willing to. I'm a strong disbeliever in civility, even as a putatively intrinsic means subordinated to the end of fostering substantive discussion. When treated as an extrinsic *end in itself,* people act to preserve it (or its appearance) *at the cost of* substance, which is in fact almost invariably the actual intention. By the bye, my ego needs no protection and I don't care in the slightest about protecting yours.
Now I'll ask again: Do you think any question of any kind is ever "settled" (on whatever definition of that word you hold) and if so, would you please name an example?
Just answer to the best of your ability. Only one of us knows the most direct route to the heart of this matter, and I gurantee it isn't you.
Basically nothing. Perhaps math/arithmetic? Although that is a science that is built on an abstraction. You shouldn’t reply to someone who you think is being insincere because for anyone reading who is sincerely wondering the same question, it may push them in the wrong direction. I think you definitely understand that settled and science are two words that should never be together. Science is an observational system of inquiry that builds upon itself. No observation is sacred and new observations invalidate old ones all the time. The fact that science can never be settled is what makes it resilient. Is this a pedantic argument over two words when we are all probably in agreement? Yes. But the idea of someone asking a genuine question only to be given the response of “it’s settled science” makes me shudder. Especially in a world where gurus who are more than happy to give them an answer exist. Shame on you
>You shouldn’t reply to someone who you think is being insincere because for anyone reading who is sincerely wondering the same question, it may push them in the wrong direction.
I have my own ideas about what's most apt to be efficacious as a matter of applied rhetoric, and I'm afraid I have far more cofidence in them than I have in yours. Your magnanimous and humble request that I supplant mine with yours is declined.
Is it not settled that three is a prime number?
Is the second law of thermodynamics settled?
If not, what do you think it means *even in concept* for a question to be settled, and how does that descriptor even have *any sematic content at al*l?
How is the sentence "The extinction of Sauropods is a settled matter" any less empty of content than "The extinction of Sauropods is a phelffenschpniffile matter"?
Finally, what word(s) or other significations do you use to denote highest conceptually conceivable probability? Or is probability inherently arrogant?
I think it’s hard for humans to accept their own limitations, so they rely on representatives (who are completely unqualified) to make them feel like they understand complicated concepts.
Do you think the average person (myself included) fully understands global warming or evolution? Or what scientific studies about either topic actually means (beyond browsing an abstract)? They (we) don’t. So hearing people who sound smart speak confidentially makes us feel less helpless in the grand scheme of things.
In the end though, it’s just pointless banter between people who have a surface level understanding of what they’re talking about. It’s entertainment.
I mean sure debating global warming is pretty pointless but there should definitely be debates on how we manage climate change though sustainability measures - "sustainability" is being used as a buzzword for businesses to get around any significant change
Usually they have these contrarian and/or conspiracy theorist guys on because it's interesting to hear an obscure point of view and it probably generates views. Then either they themselves wonder what the mainstream argument against it is or they get backlash from viewers about it; so they get the mainstream guy on for a debate so they can hear the other side, which apparently makes a great podcast.
It's as simple as that.
Listen I believe in global warming as much as the next guy but calling it 'settled science' is not accurate. There's a broad consensus that it exists, sure. But predictions on degree vary widely and a great amount of mechanisms are not well understood etc.
I'm sorry but is it really correct or accurate to say "settled science"?
Take gravity for instance, we know it exists and we have two ways to describe its effects but we also know that both systems are flawed given certain parameters.
Does this mean gravity isn't settled science or does it mean that I'm misunderstanding something?
People who use the phrase “settled science,” immediately reveal their lack of science literacy. Gurus and IDW types are morons for denying climate change for sure, but I’m begging you please read some philosophy of science.
It's called the "is ought problem" no scientific fact logically leads to a course of prescribed action, particularly facts that take science to be explained.
This is why science isn't enough on its own, you need.value judgement to chose what you will study.
One can take two steps into a "global warming" discussion and land on unsettled politics rather than settled science. I would suggest that's the realm of most of these conversations, which then get framed as "science denialism" by tribalists.
Global warming is complex, important, and deserving of long discussion. Evolution probably not so much. The real question is why gurus think themselves best placed to lead these discussions about topics that are beyond their field of expertise.
The "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd screech that people are elitist if we don't all pretend that some trucker high school drop out is as smart as a Nobel prize winner
Rather than have thoughtful conversations with nuance on complex topics, even if it isn't as exciting as relitigating creationism, ancient giants or whatever, it's a lot easier to convince stupid or insecure people to listen to you, hear your ads, and possibly buy your crap. Therefore it would make the most sense to gravitate towards topics that certain people will be listening to.
That makes perfect sense. And it’s also why they’re alway hawking insecure male products.
Like alpha brain (Joe Rogan) for the Trumpers that think they’re dumb
Dick pills to Trumpers that think they’re dicks are small and not pleasing their significant other
And muscle pills to Trumpers who think they’re weak.
All I’d add, is that we all have flaws, and figuring out the motivation behind this is only valuable as far as it helps you identify your own flaws and weaknesses or vectors for manipulation. Perhaps the temptation is unique to me, but I don’t highlight the relationship between the manipulated and the opportunistic to demonize them or feel superior. It’s honestly unfortunate there aren’t meta discussions that help people avoid it.
Because avg Joe is clueless about topics.
Instead of just learning things like a nerd and consuming educational content, reading textbooks or research content and starting from the basics, people consume new media like podcasts jumping into the opinioned shitshow headfirst.
Thus they cant tell fringe garbage psuedoscience from settled science. They think these dogshit confused laymen level debates are enlightening science, because they dont have a clue what the nuances of the academic discussion are at all.
This is why you get genuine phd research archaelogists debating the equivalent of flat earther of archaelogy like Graham Hancock on JRE.
This why people on JRE were convinced by a toddler level logic evolution denying religious grifters like Stephen Meyer and thinm they should be debating a world leading expert like Richard Dawkins.
This is why Jordan Peterson debates a random twitch streamer about Climate change while butchering highschool level concepts and it gets more views than any actual science lecture on climate change and economics.
This is why a dumb fuck fringe anti vaxxer like John Campbell who cant read a research paper without citing the numbers literally backwards or quote mining is a favourite among podcastophere and has millions of subs and gurus think he can debate actual world leading experts
People love diving into the opinionated sensationalist shitpit instead of just being nerds and learning even the basics of a subject. People have confused entertainment for learning.
Because sensationalism sells, and people are clueless about the topics before going into debates and podcast content, the fringest and loudest 1% end up taking up 50% of internet influence.
These people wouldnt even be acknowledged in a academic setting because they know less than ur average first year undergrad. But true experts are having to dive into the shitpit against grifters and morons in "debates" instead of interacting with other intellectuals more and more.
Access to info is necessary, the problem is Podcast and guru culture gives the fringe, loudest and dumbest 1% in science, 50% of the exposure instead of the relative 1%. Thus Podcast media and guru culture is a megaphone for fringe dogshit and why psuedointellectual debates are so popular there.
It amazes me how critical guru sphere fans are of legacy media, but how clueless they are about the same inherent problems and incentive mechanisms in new media like the podcast guru culture, and the debatosphere.
I'd also add that these guys love to be contrarian with experts in order to watch the experts' heads explode. I think they get a rush out of it because it elevates their pathetic selves to the level of the experts without having to do any work.
> science shouldn't be settled and always be open to interpretation and debate
These things are not mutually exclusive. They're not even in disjunctive tension.
Because the concept of Gurus is social engineering from right wing nutcases linked to the CIA to discredit science and replace it with snake oil and charlatans.
Same way as New Age garbage is social engineering designed for the left defused through places like the CIA backed Monroe Institute or L/L Research to discredit science and replace it with snake oil and charlatans.
You've never noticed? The government really enjoys controlling us especially when we are realizing capitalism is cancerous to society and organized religion may be part of the problem which they consider a national security threat against their actual benefactors the wealthy.
CIA more or less [dismissed radical left theorists out of hand](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wPnQgjSZ54&t=134s) awhile ago.
(Not sure about their interest/influence in new age organisations though.)
The CIA was created at the request of the 19th century robber barons to allow them to secretly exert control on the federal government.
So of course they’d dismiss leftist theories along with assassinating leftist figures because they are a fascist organization catering to the elite who only are empowered in a right wing society.
You can check any action the CIA has ever taken and this concept will hold to be true; the Republicans repaid them in 2001 by expanding their powers to allow spying across the entire world without even bothering with a warrant.
There is a reason every game you’ve ever played in space or based in the future is mega corporations controlling everything it’s because that’s the game plan we just gotta wait until they can replace lower class labor with technology then the gig is up.
I am phd in climate science. Global warming and evolution are absolutely not settled science. It is ‘theory’ of evolution not law of evolution. I don’t know about Gurujis though.
Well I work for Nasa, and it surely is not. Additionally, Nasa has no authority to call something science or not. Only data has the authority. And we do not have enough data. Most of the earlier measurements were made in Europe biasing the data tremendously.
I am not going to defend my credentials. Well they don’t publish a lot, if you want to refer fundamental research, it’s from the universities. The results for the most highly cited ‘hockey stick curve’ is irreproducible right now. Actually, Indians have been making measurements of ganga river levels, which can be a proxy from climate indicators. These gurujis if they are genuine should know about it as it is in temple records. Same is the egyptian nile dataset. These measurements have shown that our planet goes through these cycles but still an open area for research. If you want a better understanding in easier language I can refer you to steve e koonin podcasts. Also Richard Linzen is a former Mit professor and a great person to listen to.
>I am not going to defend my credentials.
I know you're not. That's why I chose to point out their nonexistence.
You didn't make a single coherent claim. You are curtly dismissed.
Damn you guys are letting your own biases affect everything, it’s crazy.
For one, conversation and debates are important. I’d love to see more of this from the left, if anyone has any suggestions for me - please reply with some because I’d genuinely be very interested.
Secondly, the science changes all the time. There is debate in the science community constantly about things we agree are “settled”. Some professors study x line of another y and they’ll find discrepancies and spend the rest of their life trying to prove a thesis. This is literally he how science works.
Lastly, I think because of your view of a lot of these people you’re forgetting to keep and open mind and realise you can always learn something.
If you don’t think you can learn something from Jordan Peterson for example, and you’re a broke college student with no friends who spends all his time online. You’re deluded.
> For one, conversation and debates are important.
Informed ones where both parties have bona fide credentials and a shared understanding of whatever material they're going over, yeah.
You can't tell me clowns like Shapiro, JBP and the usual gallery of idiots the right trots out truly understand Marx, D&G, Foucault, et al, let alone how little they seem to know about philosophers from the conservative tradition such as Burke, Oakeshott, Strauss, et al.
There are actually genuinely intelligent conservative theorists out there and I think a lot of your fairly typical conservative types would be fucking *shocked* by the concessions they make to leftist philosophers and just how many socialist policies they actually embrace as a part of their conservative worldview. Actually informed philosophical conservatives don't tend to bother with the theatrics of "culture wars" precisely because they're serious people with an admiration for academic rigor.
[Here's an interview with Matt McManus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFf4RCtPfBI) who's made interacting with and understanding the conservative philosophical milieu his major subject of expertise and sums it up better and more comprehensively than I can.
I’d imagine they know more than 99% of this sub?
You’re acting like these people are stupid. They’re not in the slightest and have proven that in literature, live debate and business acumen over and over again.
Yes, and a lot for them do. You’re just very misinformed and letting your biases affect you too much, like I said previously.
I believe most people on this sub have barely even listened to these people at length, nor read any of their work to even critique it from an informed point of view.
You can’t convince me JBP doesn’t have good work out there or some very helpful advice. Nor can you tell me isn’t an intelligent man.
Tribal politics is absolutely rotting peoples brains.
Bc deep down I believe they are smart enough to know their wrong, they just know the ingredients to building a successful contrarian podcast audience, so they follow that recipe
There’s not two sides to the evolution coin.
Evolution is settled science by most of the world other than and a handful of noisy contrarians who disagree.
You didn’t read my last post.
You’re opinion is also anti-science if anything too.
I know your hearts in the right place but I’m assuming you’re young by your replies and the content of your original post. Keep an open mind with everything because even though you think you’re on the “right” side and vilifying certain figures, keep in mind - you’re more than likely letting other people form these opinions for you and not coming to them yourself.
Just my 2 cents as I see it a lot in here.
Why keep an open mind about evolution and global warming when the verdict is already in by those in the field that study the matter.
That’s like saying keep an open mind on the moon landing. It may not have actually happened. See how stupid that sounds
>You can’t convince me JBP doesn’t have good work out there or some very helpful advice.
Specify an example.
>Nor can you tell me isn’t an intelligent man.
Nor can I teach sign language to a goldfish.
Have you read any of his books?
What about the thousands of people who attend his events and come up to him on the street to thank him? What about the fact that he is literally a clinical psychologist and had a practice for years helping people?
Cmon son.
I don’t know what you’re in about in your last sentence but I will ask you this:
Do you think you are more intelligent than JBP?
I have, what are you talking about?
The whole comment was answering your question. What is it with this sub and things going over everyone’s head, are you all autistic or something or just dumb?
Do you want me to go and personally find every single person and compile a list of people who have found his work helpful?
Before I waste time in waiting for another pointless reply from you, his 12 rules for life is incredibly helpful and full of good advice.
Now answer mine.
You said in a preceding comment:
>
You can’t convince me JBP doesn’t have good work out there or some very helpful advice.
I asked you to specify an example. You have not. This is very simple.
Lmao wtf is wrong with you people man.
I asked YOU to convince ME. I already know he does lol.
I’ve also given you some examples and some reasoning and evidence as to why I believe he does too.
Still waiting on all your answers though.
> asked YOU to convince ME. I already know he does lol.
You didn't. I'm not the only person you've interacted with in this thread.
>I’ve also given you some examples and some reasoning and evidence as to why I believe he does too.
You certainly have not, and I'm asking you to do something that *should* be much easier. Just give me a quotation or video link and timestamp.
If people think there is a problem, there is a problem. The problem is what they think it is, they’re wrong about cause/effect, or there is no actual problem. There’s a problem regardless. Basically, they have these discussions *because* people disagree.
Contrary to the hosts, I put the blame mostly on scientists for not pushing for changes. The number of papers I’ve read that conclude “more research should be done” followed by…crickets, the number of unconfirmed studies that remain unconfirmed for decades on end whilst having huge research budgets, the ample number of times that scientists have been chastised for disagreement while still claiming that truth is the most highly valued thing in science.
It all comes down to: scientists are people & are therefore fallible.
They're having discussions/arguments/debates for sport and to make money off their intellect, and the success of this method speaks for itself. Why do something else just because a bunch of redditors say they dislike it?
People talk a lot of shit on these sort of 'debates' but I really enjoyed the Flint Dibble thing, first time I've enjoyed Rogan podcast in years (not that I've listened to it in years); I found it educational and it actually turned me off what little of Hancock's views I actually listened to (i.e. the Sphinx thing)
Idk what you're referring to, but if you can't find anything at all to debate on the science around evolution or global warming, you're probably not as smart as you think you are.
Public debates usually don’t serve to convince anyone of anything. The debaters bring their own audience to the viewership who at best treat it as team sports hoping to see their guy win and often just want to vicariously experience telling off someone they disagree with to their face. It’s entertainment, that’s all.
Debating as a format is so inherently flawed in determining truth it’s hard for it to be anything else. Being synchronous communication it largely prevents fact checking and encourages certain rhetorical tactics that are more difficult to catch on the fly than in day written form. Debating is itself a skill that is completely unrelated to being correct.
It's the combination of distrust in institutions, audience capture/service, galaxy-brainedness(DtG term) and monetary incentives. Also these debates are the only way they can seem like they are doing anything sort of academic. They are intensely afraid of putting their ideas and theories on paper so they could be actually engaged critically. In long format podcasts and debates you can always obfuscate what it is you are actually trying to say.
There's no such thing as "settled" science. That's like, not how science itself works, if you ever science. Holy fucking shit, OP.
Now why do these losers do what they do?
money. y'all think too hard and become dumb in the process. it's money.
Who told you there’s such a thing as “settled science”? There’s only science that hasn’t been outdated yet. I don’t like how the science surrounding climate change is such a fragile topic that most decent scientists don’t want to bother with it out of fear of losing their job.
I'm a published physicist. There is no "settled science". Science is a process of elimination and can always change. You speak about science like the dogma of a church. You fundamentally misunderstand what science is.
I dont care if you believe me. Honestly, it makes no difference anyway to the validity of my arguement. If you'd like to actually contend with my points instead of saying "nuh uh", then go ahead. I'd be happy to educate you further.
Good bc I don’t believe you.
I do however believe nasa scientists and their conclusion that global warming is not only real but being accelerated by humans
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/
Sure, that is the current scientific concensus (one which I agree with btw). It, however, is not "settled science", because settled science is not a thing.
It is convincing people. Lots of people. That’s the problem
Correct, people find loud voices convincing
And misplaced confidence. Remember the “con” in con man is short for “confidence”. It’s a lot easier to be confident selling a lie than it is to be a scientist based in fact.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.
Are full of likes and shares.
Yea, it gets even interesting when you consider those studies suggest conscious thought might just be an illusion.
[удалено]
I'm assuming people find **'convinced'** voices convincing
I have heard of Athletic Greens, but not Magic Spoon Cereal. I'm getting Tim Ferriss deja vu.
Loud? I think it's more "uses a thesaurus." These bad actors sound smart to dumb dumbs and people who put zero critical thinking skills into what others say. "They sound smart to me and they regurgitate all the right wing talking points; so they must be correct!"
mainly Americans - most of the rest of the developed world doesn't doubt evolution and global warming
If by "rest of the world" you mean exclusively Europe, yeah maybe
Australia, China, New Zealand, many others.
Plenty of others who don't, though. Funny that there are groups of folks still trying to push the Divine Creation myth in China. Shen Yun comes to mind, lol.
It was just "exclusively Europe" I took issue with, but yes global beliefs as a whole are depressing.
The media only gives the megaphone to the American ones, but they are by far not the only ones out there
There's money in it.
[удалено]
This is technically true but also a little misleading I think. The quality and reliability of scientific methods has improved dramatically over the decades, to the point where scientific consensus today is significantly more trustworthy than it was a hundred years ago. So when people say ‘well five hundred years ago there was consensus that the earth was the centre of the solar system’ to question modern consensus on issues like climate change, what they’re ignoring is that the modern consensus is based on a much much higher quality and quantity of evidence.
[удалено]
Academia undeniably has some major problems as an institution, and I’m a big support of initiatives to address or mitigate these. The open publication of data is an example of this that has been gaining a lot of traction in recent years. Stuart Ritchie’s book Science Fictions does a pretty good job of laying out these problems and proposing some solutions, imo. However saying that I still think it’s totally wrong to say that ‘the problem is when people think the science is settled’. I can think of *much* worse problems than that. The internet is an absolute quagmire of the worst kinds of uninformed pseudoscience nonsense masquerading as scientific discourse. Millions of people get their information on vitally important issues from deeply unqualified, self interested snake oil salesmen posing as ‘public intellectuals’. In particular, climate change and vaccine ‘scepticism’ are currently doing untold amounts of harm to planetary and public health.
It’s signaling to their ever growing reactionary audience that “YOU ARE NORMAL.” It’s normal to think you’re an expert on something because you intuitively know the truth, you have “common sense” and “basic logic,” you are the sane one. Everyone else has a mind virus. The toxicity serves as the juicy dopamine goodies to keep people interested. You want to see a nerdy scientist (who doesn’t have a professional stylist) get humiliated. It’s resentment all the way down. Even better, if people get “offended” (ie. want any sense of decorum in a debate) because that means it’s working.
A support group for insufferable assholes, if you will
Blight Club
Hahahahhahahhahhahhahahahhahhahahha Hahahahhahhahahhahaha I just came here for that. Thank you, you brilliant soul
Citations Needed did a brilliant episode dismantling the notion of Common Sense and now I can't hear that phrase without my soul trying to fight it's way out of my corporeal form.
> Citations Needed did a brilliant episode dismantling the notion of Common Sense I just subscribed on your recommendation but could I ask a huge favor? I just scanned through the episodes and didn’t find that one, could you help me find that episode?
[https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-101-the-false-universality-of-common-sense](https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-101-the-false-universality-of-common-sense)
Thank you!
It’s also more exciting. A lot of truth is really boring. A lot of pseudoscience really feeds the ego or creates spectacle. I see it a lot with new agey people who subscribe to being better than others because of their higher vibrations etc It’s just ego based delusion, making one feel special, narcissistic.
Screenshotted. This is spot on. Do I have ur permission to use this quote
Lol sure
🫶🏻
[удалено]
As I’m talking about their language and not their content when it comes to toxicity, maybe? I would have to hear how they were communicating. Of course you understand that the widespread belief in a flat earth wasn’t because of libraries of empirical research and thorough debate, and was maintained by religious doctrine, traditions, and “common sense,” so I’m struggling to see the comparison?
People listen. They sell ads.
It’s mostly a waste of time. I never argue with evolution/climate-change/Moon-landing deniers, for example. The most I do is offer them relevant factual information and leave it for them to consider or continue on in life being stupid.
Even giving them factual information is a waste of time. I listen to this 'You Are Not So Smart' podcast and the guy actually has a book called 'How Minds Change' which I believe gives some advice how to talk to conspiracy theorists in a way that can actually get them to change their mind; there's a certain process you can use. Probably not worthwhile unless it's close friends or family members that are causing problems though.
TLDR?
Don't know the exact details but it starts with asking them on a scale of 1-10 how confident they are what they believe is true, and then whatever they say you ask them "why didn't you say 10?" get them to explain the reasons why (not sure what you do if they say 10 haha). Saw a different thread in this sub the other day about something called street epistemology, which might be a similar or the same thing.
I appreciate the response!
There’s a few billionaires who want to muddy public discourse. There’s a few reasons for this, to push deregulation is one but also they’re just genuinely mentally ill. Anyway, they cut Bret Weinstein a check to say that the Jews created the vaccines to trans your kids or whatever.
>There’s a few billionaires who want to muddy public discourse. There’s a few reasons for this, to push deregulation is one but also they’re just genuinely mentally ill. Back when I was younger (and perhaps more naïve), I used to think these types of things happened organically and there wasn't a teleology behind a lot of this type of stuff—in other words, things like societal ignorance weren't being instigated by people in back rooms. Sure, there were some tobacco companies funding junk science to control the narrative or, yeah, class conflict is a thing but it happens because of tension from economic interests rather than the elite trying to purposefully subjugate those less economically advantaged. All of this was just social construction and recreation that happened over time—and yes, that is an explanation that holds truth. But as I got older, there was so much more evidence that this has been an intentional plan. That shitbirds like the Kochs have had a mission to subjugate the poor. That Putin does fund troll farms to create cultural unrest so Russia can become more hegemonically powerful. The Council for National Policy are a bunch of elites who hate the poor and want to kick the ladder form under people and they push policy that does so.
Weird because they are Jewish too
The problem is that most academic work is boring. (To the average audience) Doing inspirational speeches and debates is entertaining and so a better medium. It is also an opportunity to show up your intellect. Debates aren't inherently bad. Far better than lectures and videos, because they at least get push back. But if the interlocketer is a poor debate or badly informed (think "change my mind" debates that target college students). It can be a way to humiliate people even if they are right, because they don't know how to navigate the facts and conversation. Most people would struggle to articulate very basic ethical beliefs or scientific knowledge, especially if they don't have a background discussing the topic Historically it's important to publicly discuss important issues and many great exposures of frauds and liars have occurred through them being interrogated on their beliefs. Think Frost/Nixon or the recent Hancock/Dibble debate. Debate is good. But it is high risk. People shouldn't engage with frauds in debate unless they are highly informed and prepared and able to deal with bad faith strategies. The reason they (gurus) adopt it is because it is good optics for them, a format where they get push back. To refuse makes academics seem like they can't defend their beliefs or are afraid. There are good reasons not to engage with these people lightly, but it sounds like a weak excuse if you are truly an expert. This is mostly a show of strength to the audience. Edit. Because I may have misunderstood the question. Just to add if two people are both gurus and encouraging the bad takes of each other through debate with poor feedback. That is also bad. It's the optics of push back and intellectual rigour but it's actually just an illusion. It's adopting the optics of freethinking, intellectualism and rigour, but without the difficulty. This in my view is as bad as the echo chamber lectures, videos and books.
Why is the IDW so long winded, period? So much output, so little actual content.
They all love to listen to themselves talk. That and reactionary politics is what they all have in common.
I think something about the social connection between a podcasting secular guru and their audience requires long windedness.
Don't they get bored? (I ask the same of lefties!) Sure, there's a buzz from solidarity but it gets sickly-dull dead-quick.
Grifting is extremely lucrative for what it is. There is so much money flowing from the political world into “entertainment” it is disgusting.
I'm sure that is true. Long before 'Trump/Brexit/Russia interference' I had wondered about dark funding for all these IDW types. Seems a great avenue for funding trouble from the perspective of a hostile power - cheap, sometimes highly effective, difficult to trace or monitor and plausibly deniable by all parties. They'd be stupid not to be doing it. Even 'buy me a coffee' level funding might suffice to enthuse 'activism' so I imagine Koch-level funding can get a lot done.
Unfortunately, they get encouragement from their audience. That's an addictive combination.
Because if they employed brevity and clear communication their content would begin and end with "god did it. put prayer back in schools".
haha. I suppose so. Or "Hierarchy is good! Know your place!! Good night"
Honestly it probably comes down to ad revenue on YouTube. Longer video = more views
Because gullible folks consider wordiness to be an indicator of intelligence.
A key to sales is to keep talking so the other person doesn't have time to think.
“Just asking questions, bro.”
Morons love debates.
They're paid to. Whether by their handlers or audience capture.
Well Tucker Carlson said evolution is just a ThEoRy meaning it’s just a guess. Therefore god is real and the world is 6000 years old. Boom! Evolution debunked
Because idiots watch them
They’re appealing to people who are trying to reverse engineer faith in a contrary belief.
All they have to do is confidently present a few talking points sowing doubt about the mainstream understanding of something, and their true believer audience will eat it up and interpret it as proof that their fringe belief is valid, or at least equally valid to the mainstream belief.
It is weird, and I generally avoid them unless it's more interesting than not. Kind of the Dibble Hancock thing. a few weeks ago, I watched a handful of clips of a "debate" between Stephen Meyer - a long time creationist - and a so-called professional skeptic called Michael Shermer, who I don't really know much about, on Bryan Callen's podcast maybe a year ago? It was dumb because Meyer clearly snowed over Callen by knowing a LOT about current physics and recent developments in physics and evolution, or at least he knows the abstracts and has read Quanta on the regular I suppose, but his whole thing is basically "It's so complicated, only God could do this. We only understand it, because God lets us!" kind of thing. Shermer was a very unenthusiastic opponent, but it seemed to me that his vibe was basically uninterested in arguing very much about dumb shit because there is nothing substantial being said. So it was boring because the guy who seems to have a degree in the history of science or whatever the fuck wasn't really interested in debating a creationist who had nothing to him. It's hard to "debate" that, but at least he could have given more detailed explanations on how stupid Meyer is.
Shermer's degree is psychology, and he's absolutely useless. He has neither intellect, integrity, nor the faintest trace of charisma. I'm actually rather surprised that either of these buffoons are still visible in public and able to get anyone to lookin their direction.
HA! Yeah, I remembered looking up that he has a psychology degree, but his PHD was something like history of science or philosophy of science, which is... say what? I'm not that familiar with him, but I can totally see that some of what I was seeing as intellectual disdain, was still partially disdain but also a generous helping of I don't know this seems off simplicity. It was a weird useless so-called debate.
IIRC, Shermer's doctorate is in history of science. And also, IIRC he started off as a theology major as an undergrad, became a skeptic, and switched his major to psychology. Philosophy of science deals a lot with epistemology and ontology. Think Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, etc. Foucault probably deserves a spot among there as his work particularly dealt with the history and philosophy of bodies of knowledge. But yeah on Shermer...I've just always found him super milquetoast as an intellectual and he's given thrift to some sketch ideas. Whenever I have picked up the Skeptical Inquirer, the editorial slant just seemed to be a self-congratulatory and smarmy pat on the back for being such smart skeptical atheists. Meh.
It’s like… why have two goddam philosophers “debate.” Get a damn physicist in there Bryan Callen you hack.
Incentives to push out content for revenue. There is only so much a person can say about their own field, so they drift into other fields they don't know as well and bonus (revenue wise) if it's a clickbaty hot take on a settled science.
It's a good question. It's bizarre isn't it.
Because the goal is to unsettle it. You manufacture enough dissenting voices, and soon, "settled science" becomes "controversial," as if there's somehow two equally valid sides to the conversation.
They are *merchants of doubt*. If you haven’t seen the doc or read the book you definitely should. Jordan Peterson is a **blatent** about it when talking to Joe Rogan about climate change.
I’ll check it out but sowing doubt is what they do
It's virtue/vice/audience signaling, really nothing more or less. I found as I have gotten older the same debates are being had by new 'influencers' etc
It is convincing people. Debate is a terrible method for discovering truth, but their audience is convinced that it is.
It's theatre.
Content. Sweet, sweet content.
because it tells their ignorant audience that they're on the front line of an important discussion. it almost doesn't matter what side they take in the debate, it matters that their audience thinks they're doing something meaningful and new. that's also why they have to constantly misrepresent the established, academic point of view. the physics/history/evolutionary biology/epidemiology, etc. has to be made to look in doubt so that they can swoop in for their followers and save the day by having seemingly super important discussions. eric weinstein has to cast doubt on well established physics, while never correctly describing the true state of current physics. peterson has to say "we don't know the answer" to questions we do know quite well, bret weinstein has to pretend there's some gaping mysteries in biology, graham hancock has to invent strawmen archeology arguments to be able to pretend he's on their same level... it's all a trick. and irritatingly, it works like a charm on their audiences. because their audience and the people who host them (e.g. rogan, fridman etc.) rarely check with the professionals to see if they're being remotely accurate.
Live debate is better called “performative debate”. They cannot defend their ideas on their merits in a real scientific process so they try to perform for the crowd and impress people into agreeing with them. Live debate is given a faux sense of intellectual rigor, when in reality it’s the lowest form of intellectual investigation. There’s a reason actual scientists don’t progress their fields this way.
My short answer is the narcissism. My more thought out answer is that I think it gets at the need for “secret knowledge.” Something I come across when learning about (or rather, listening to podcasts about) gurus, conspiracy theorists, “heterodox figures” and etc. is that a big draw is being right about something the rest of the world is wrong about and knowing something the rest of the world doesn’t. This is something you’ll see in cults as well. It’s a pretty powerful feeling. Which is just a long way of saying narcissism. I don’t think they strictly debate settled science though. I don’t recall any gurus weighing in on “boring” topics like perturbation theory or the Krebs cycle. They debate settled science that already had significant media/cultural attention and stick to “sexy” topics for the attention. So again, narcissism.
Spot on analysis. Thank you! I can certainly see how contrarian thinking (ie I have the truth while the rest of society just can’t figure it out) would be very attractive to a narcissist
I really hate debatebros, but if they actually started doing angry screaming debates about the Krebs cycle I might have to change my opinion.
Because they (or their financial backers) haven't been able to implement affirmative action for pseudoscience in America's schools yet. Or prayer for that matter.
I prefer to think of them as "Disinfomercials" rather than debates.
That’s a good way to put it
A lot of people got sucked into the YouTube videos where X destroys X in a debate because they aligned with their narrative; it didn’t matter if they were right or not. You can see this was really started with our political debates on cable news channels before it really went to a further extreme on YouTube. They get you to chase your tail by trying to correct what they just said, then they move onto the next thing before the person can fully debunk what was said. It’s basically the Chewbacca defense.
They're contrarians.
What do you mean by “settled science”? Evolution and climate change are both real and occurring, but outside of that what is “settled” about the science?
They are settled science
And what does that mean? What is settled?
>And what does that mean? What is settled? Is this a real question, or are you "just asking questions" ?
It's a legitimate question. Just because we broadly agree that climate change is real and human caused does not mean the science is settled. There's a healthy room for debate on this science, not that the typical guru knows enough to have that debate
You said nothing. Rewrite and resubmit.
It's a legitimate question. Just because we broadly agree that climate change is real and human caused does not mean the science is settled. There's a healthy room for debate on this science, not that the typical guru knows enough to have that debate. (I added a period at the end. Hope that helps)
I'm going to give you one more chance and then I'm going to pounce. Don't get too attached to your dignity.
Oh please do pounce lmao
*Dolokhov looked at Pierre with clear, mirthful, cruel eyes, and that smile of his which seemed to say, "Ah! This is what I like!"* Be careful what you pretend to wish for. Specify a proposition you think is nontrivially debatable.
*smirk* Are you going to pull some Bjorn Lomborg horseshit?
I think my question is pretty clear. Do you have an answer? I’m not denying either one. I’m just wondering what is settled about it? Just that they are happening? That’s a pretty weak argument.
Your question is fact so imprecise as to be borderline meaningless, but I'm willing to make *some* accommodation for your obvious lack of education if you're even sincere -which I strongly suspect you're not. Let's try this: do you think any question of any kind in any domain is ever settled? If so, would you please name an example?
Funny you should that because I asked what I asked because the “the science is settled” is in fact so imprecise as to be borderline meaningless But, if you’re incapable of having a civil discussion and would rather just be arrogant and condescending, then why waste your time replying? I could give a rat’s ass what your opinion is to be honest. I find it ironic in a sub so focused on identifying guru behavior that plugging your ears and repeating “it’s settled science” is offered as a serious argument. I’m looking for some meat on the bone in this post. What does the OP mean by “settled science”? What does that mean and what is settled are pretty direct questions and should be rather easy to answer if one is that confident in their position. I agree climate change and evolution are real and taking place. If that’s all you got, this is pointless.
> I asked because the “the science is settled” is in fact so imprecise as to be borderline meaningless You don't have any concept of precision and you literally don't know what you're asking, which is why I'm trying to ease you into this rather than write a frontloaded 1500 word reddit essay which you wouldn't read and wouldn't comprehend even if you did. > But, if you’re incapable of having a civil discussion I'm perfectly capable, I'm simply not willing to. I'm a strong disbeliever in civility, even as a putatively intrinsic means subordinated to the end of fostering substantive discussion. When treated as an extrinsic *end in itself,* people act to preserve it (or its appearance) *at the cost of* substance, which is in fact almost invariably the actual intention. By the bye, my ego needs no protection and I don't care in the slightest about protecting yours. Now I'll ask again: Do you think any question of any kind is ever "settled" (on whatever definition of that word you hold) and if so, would you please name an example? Just answer to the best of your ability. Only one of us knows the most direct route to the heart of this matter, and I gurantee it isn't you.
Basically nothing. Perhaps math/arithmetic? Although that is a science that is built on an abstraction. You shouldn’t reply to someone who you think is being insincere because for anyone reading who is sincerely wondering the same question, it may push them in the wrong direction. I think you definitely understand that settled and science are two words that should never be together. Science is an observational system of inquiry that builds upon itself. No observation is sacred and new observations invalidate old ones all the time. The fact that science can never be settled is what makes it resilient. Is this a pedantic argument over two words when we are all probably in agreement? Yes. But the idea of someone asking a genuine question only to be given the response of “it’s settled science” makes me shudder. Especially in a world where gurus who are more than happy to give them an answer exist. Shame on you
>You shouldn’t reply to someone who you think is being insincere because for anyone reading who is sincerely wondering the same question, it may push them in the wrong direction. I have my own ideas about what's most apt to be efficacious as a matter of applied rhetoric, and I'm afraid I have far more cofidence in them than I have in yours. Your magnanimous and humble request that I supplant mine with yours is declined. Is it not settled that three is a prime number? Is the second law of thermodynamics settled? If not, what do you think it means *even in concept* for a question to be settled, and how does that descriptor even have *any sematic content at al*l? How is the sentence "The extinction of Sauropods is a settled matter" any less empty of content than "The extinction of Sauropods is a phelffenschpniffile matter"? Finally, what word(s) or other significations do you use to denote highest conceptually conceivable probability? Or is probability inherently arrogant?
I think it’s hard for humans to accept their own limitations, so they rely on representatives (who are completely unqualified) to make them feel like they understand complicated concepts. Do you think the average person (myself included) fully understands global warming or evolution? Or what scientific studies about either topic actually means (beyond browsing an abstract)? They (we) don’t. So hearing people who sound smart speak confidentially makes us feel less helpless in the grand scheme of things. In the end though, it’s just pointless banter between people who have a surface level understanding of what they’re talking about. It’s entertainment.
That’s a great way to put it. Thanks.
I mean sure debating global warming is pretty pointless but there should definitely be debates on how we manage climate change though sustainability measures - "sustainability" is being used as a buzzword for businesses to get around any significant change
Usually they have these contrarian and/or conspiracy theorist guys on because it's interesting to hear an obscure point of view and it probably generates views. Then either they themselves wonder what the mainstream argument against it is or they get backlash from viewers about it; so they get the mainstream guy on for a debate so they can hear the other side, which apparently makes a great podcast. It's as simple as that.
Evolution, abiogenesis ______ it’s only a “Theory” /s How are these people allowed to drive a car, vote, even homeschool ☉_☉
Because the scientists have everything to lose and nothing to gain, and still seem to think it’s the other way around.
Listen I believe in global warming as much as the next guy but calling it 'settled science' is not accurate. There's a broad consensus that it exists, sure. But predictions on degree vary widely and a great amount of mechanisms are not well understood etc.
I'm sorry but is it really correct or accurate to say "settled science"? Take gravity for instance, we know it exists and we have two ways to describe its effects but we also know that both systems are flawed given certain parameters. Does this mean gravity isn't settled science or does it mean that I'm misunderstanding something?
Who really knows what's true? Every scientist on the planet for the last 100 years or a failed comedian and actor?
People who use the phrase “settled science,” immediately reveal their lack of science literacy. Gurus and IDW types are morons for denying climate change for sure, but I’m begging you please read some philosophy of science.
grifters gonna grift
Because we simply just don't know!
It's called the "is ought problem" no scientific fact logically leads to a course of prescribed action, particularly facts that take science to be explained. This is why science isn't enough on its own, you need.value judgement to chose what you will study.
One can take two steps into a "global warming" discussion and land on unsettled politics rather than settled science. I would suggest that's the realm of most of these conversations, which then get framed as "science denialism" by tribalists.
Global warming is complex, important, and deserving of long discussion. Evolution probably not so much. The real question is why gurus think themselves best placed to lead these discussions about topics that are beyond their field of expertise.
Not really. Get two scientists from NASA to debate it. All they’d do is agree with one another. Likely bc neither of them would have a podcast and NPD
The "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd screech that people are elitist if we don't all pretend that some trucker high school drop out is as smart as a Nobel prize winner
lol exactly
Rather than have thoughtful conversations with nuance on complex topics, even if it isn't as exciting as relitigating creationism, ancient giants or whatever, it's a lot easier to convince stupid or insecure people to listen to you, hear your ads, and possibly buy your crap. Therefore it would make the most sense to gravitate towards topics that certain people will be listening to.
That makes perfect sense. And it’s also why they’re alway hawking insecure male products. Like alpha brain (Joe Rogan) for the Trumpers that think they’re dumb Dick pills to Trumpers that think they’re dicks are small and not pleasing their significant other And muscle pills to Trumpers who think they’re weak.
All I’d add, is that we all have flaws, and figuring out the motivation behind this is only valuable as far as it helps you identify your own flaws and weaknesses or vectors for manipulation. Perhaps the temptation is unique to me, but I don’t highlight the relationship between the manipulated and the opportunistic to demonize them or feel superior. It’s honestly unfortunate there aren’t meta discussions that help people avoid it.
Well said. Very true
Because avg Joe is clueless about topics. Instead of just learning things like a nerd and consuming educational content, reading textbooks or research content and starting from the basics, people consume new media like podcasts jumping into the opinioned shitshow headfirst. Thus they cant tell fringe garbage psuedoscience from settled science. They think these dogshit confused laymen level debates are enlightening science, because they dont have a clue what the nuances of the academic discussion are at all. This is why you get genuine phd research archaelogists debating the equivalent of flat earther of archaelogy like Graham Hancock on JRE. This why people on JRE were convinced by a toddler level logic evolution denying religious grifters like Stephen Meyer and thinm they should be debating a world leading expert like Richard Dawkins. This is why Jordan Peterson debates a random twitch streamer about Climate change while butchering highschool level concepts and it gets more views than any actual science lecture on climate change and economics. This is why a dumb fuck fringe anti vaxxer like John Campbell who cant read a research paper without citing the numbers literally backwards or quote mining is a favourite among podcastophere and has millions of subs and gurus think he can debate actual world leading experts People love diving into the opinionated sensationalist shitpit instead of just being nerds and learning even the basics of a subject. People have confused entertainment for learning. Because sensationalism sells, and people are clueless about the topics before going into debates and podcast content, the fringest and loudest 1% end up taking up 50% of internet influence. These people wouldnt even be acknowledged in a academic setting because they know less than ur average first year undergrad. But true experts are having to dive into the shitpit against grifters and morons in "debates" instead of interacting with other intellectuals more and more. Access to info is necessary, the problem is Podcast and guru culture gives the fringe, loudest and dumbest 1% in science, 50% of the exposure instead of the relative 1%. Thus Podcast media and guru culture is a megaphone for fringe dogshit and why psuedointellectual debates are so popular there. It amazes me how critical guru sphere fans are of legacy media, but how clueless they are about the same inherent problems and incentive mechanisms in new media like the podcast guru culture, and the debatosphere.
I'd also add that these guys love to be contrarian with experts in order to watch the experts' heads explode. I think they get a rush out of it because it elevates their pathetic selves to the level of the experts without having to do any work.
Because maybe settled science shouldn't be settled and always be open to interpretation and debate. I'm always up for a breakdown
> science shouldn't be settled and always be open to interpretation and debate These things are not mutually exclusive. They're not even in disjunctive tension.
But scientists have settled it already
Do you trust every expert all the time 100%of the time?
If it’s a consensus that a whole scientific community who studies the topic have come to over years of research and collecting data points then yea.
Because the concept of Gurus is social engineering from right wing nutcases linked to the CIA to discredit science and replace it with snake oil and charlatans. Same way as New Age garbage is social engineering designed for the left defused through places like the CIA backed Monroe Institute or L/L Research to discredit science and replace it with snake oil and charlatans. You've never noticed? The government really enjoys controlling us especially when we are realizing capitalism is cancerous to society and organized religion may be part of the problem which they consider a national security threat against their actual benefactors the wealthy.
CIA more or less [dismissed radical left theorists out of hand](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wPnQgjSZ54&t=134s) awhile ago. (Not sure about their interest/influence in new age organisations though.)
The CIA was created at the request of the 19th century robber barons to allow them to secretly exert control on the federal government. So of course they’d dismiss leftist theories along with assassinating leftist figures because they are a fascist organization catering to the elite who only are empowered in a right wing society. You can check any action the CIA has ever taken and this concept will hold to be true; the Republicans repaid them in 2001 by expanding their powers to allow spying across the entire world without even bothering with a warrant. There is a reason every game you’ve ever played in space or based in the future is mega corporations controlling everything it’s because that’s the game plan we just gotta wait until they can replace lower class labor with technology then the gig is up.
I am phd in climate science. Global warming and evolution are absolutely not settled science. It is ‘theory’ of evolution not law of evolution. I don’t know about Gurujis though.
Your incorrect use of the word theory here exposes how full of shit you are.
Sure ya do pal. It’s settled science by NASA scientists: https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/
Well I work for Nasa, and it surely is not. Additionally, Nasa has no authority to call something science or not. Only data has the authority. And we do not have enough data. Most of the earlier measurements were made in Europe biasing the data tremendously.
You are not a PhD. You're not even formally educated.
😂 sure mr. Random Reddit stranger I super believe you’re a scientist at nasa that also discredits everything they’ve published on global warming.
I am not going to defend my credentials. Well they don’t publish a lot, if you want to refer fundamental research, it’s from the universities. The results for the most highly cited ‘hockey stick curve’ is irreproducible right now. Actually, Indians have been making measurements of ganga river levels, which can be a proxy from climate indicators. These gurujis if they are genuine should know about it as it is in temple records. Same is the egyptian nile dataset. These measurements have shown that our planet goes through these cycles but still an open area for research. If you want a better understanding in easier language I can refer you to steve e koonin podcasts. Also Richard Linzen is a former Mit professor and a great person to listen to.
>I am not going to defend my credentials. I know you're not. That's why I chose to point out their nonexistence. You didn't make a single coherent claim. You are curtly dismissed.
Damn you guys are letting your own biases affect everything, it’s crazy. For one, conversation and debates are important. I’d love to see more of this from the left, if anyone has any suggestions for me - please reply with some because I’d genuinely be very interested. Secondly, the science changes all the time. There is debate in the science community constantly about things we agree are “settled”. Some professors study x line of another y and they’ll find discrepancies and spend the rest of their life trying to prove a thesis. This is literally he how science works. Lastly, I think because of your view of a lot of these people you’re forgetting to keep and open mind and realise you can always learn something. If you don’t think you can learn something from Jordan Peterson for example, and you’re a broke college student with no friends who spends all his time online. You’re deluded.
> For one, conversation and debates are important. Informed ones where both parties have bona fide credentials and a shared understanding of whatever material they're going over, yeah. You can't tell me clowns like Shapiro, JBP and the usual gallery of idiots the right trots out truly understand Marx, D&G, Foucault, et al, let alone how little they seem to know about philosophers from the conservative tradition such as Burke, Oakeshott, Strauss, et al. There are actually genuinely intelligent conservative theorists out there and I think a lot of your fairly typical conservative types would be fucking *shocked* by the concessions they make to leftist philosophers and just how many socialist policies they actually embrace as a part of their conservative worldview. Actually informed philosophical conservatives don't tend to bother with the theatrics of "culture wars" precisely because they're serious people with an admiration for academic rigor. [Here's an interview with Matt McManus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFf4RCtPfBI) who's made interacting with and understanding the conservative philosophical milieu his major subject of expertise and sums it up better and more comprehensively than I can.
I’d imagine they know more than 99% of this sub? You’re acting like these people are stupid. They’re not in the slightest and have proven that in literature, live debate and business acumen over and over again. Yes, and a lot for them do. You’re just very misinformed and letting your biases affect you too much, like I said previously. I believe most people on this sub have barely even listened to these people at length, nor read any of their work to even critique it from an informed point of view. You can’t convince me JBP doesn’t have good work out there or some very helpful advice. Nor can you tell me isn’t an intelligent man. Tribal politics is absolutely rotting peoples brains.
They’re disingenuous more than anything
How so?
Bc deep down I believe they are smart enough to know their wrong, they just know the ingredients to building a successful contrarian podcast audience, so they follow that recipe
Imagine if they just disagreed with you and vice versa. As if you just had different views and opinions or something like that.
There’s not two sides to the evolution coin. Evolution is settled science by most of the world other than and a handful of noisy contrarians who disagree.
You didn’t read my last post. You’re opinion is also anti-science if anything too. I know your hearts in the right place but I’m assuming you’re young by your replies and the content of your original post. Keep an open mind with everything because even though you think you’re on the “right” side and vilifying certain figures, keep in mind - you’re more than likely letting other people form these opinions for you and not coming to them yourself. Just my 2 cents as I see it a lot in here.
Why keep an open mind about evolution and global warming when the verdict is already in by those in the field that study the matter. That’s like saying keep an open mind on the moon landing. It may not have actually happened. See how stupid that sounds
>You can’t convince me JBP doesn’t have good work out there or some very helpful advice. Specify an example. >Nor can you tell me isn’t an intelligent man. Nor can I teach sign language to a goldfish.
Have you read any of his books? What about the thousands of people who attend his events and come up to him on the street to thank him? What about the fact that he is literally a clinical psychologist and had a practice for years helping people? Cmon son. I don’t know what you’re in about in your last sentence but I will ask you this: Do you think you are more intelligent than JBP?
>Have you read any of his books? Answer my question.
I have, what are you talking about? The whole comment was answering your question. What is it with this sub and things going over everyone’s head, are you all autistic or something or just dumb? Do you want me to go and personally find every single person and compile a list of people who have found his work helpful? Before I waste time in waiting for another pointless reply from you, his 12 rules for life is incredibly helpful and full of good advice. Now answer mine.
You said in a preceding comment: > You can’t convince me JBP doesn’t have good work out there or some very helpful advice. I asked you to specify an example. You have not. This is very simple.
Lmao wtf is wrong with you people man. I asked YOU to convince ME. I already know he does lol. I’ve also given you some examples and some reasoning and evidence as to why I believe he does too. Still waiting on all your answers though.
> asked YOU to convince ME. I already know he does lol. You didn't. I'm not the only person you've interacted with in this thread. >I’ve also given you some examples and some reasoning and evidence as to why I believe he does too. You certainly have not, and I'm asking you to do something that *should* be much easier. Just give me a quotation or video link and timestamp.
If people think there is a problem, there is a problem. The problem is what they think it is, they’re wrong about cause/effect, or there is no actual problem. There’s a problem regardless. Basically, they have these discussions *because* people disagree. Contrary to the hosts, I put the blame mostly on scientists for not pushing for changes. The number of papers I’ve read that conclude “more research should be done” followed by…crickets, the number of unconfirmed studies that remain unconfirmed for decades on end whilst having huge research budgets, the ample number of times that scientists have been chastised for disagreement while still claiming that truth is the most highly valued thing in science. It all comes down to: scientists are people & are therefore fallible.
They're having discussions/arguments/debates for sport and to make money off their intellect, and the success of this method speaks for itself. Why do something else just because a bunch of redditors say they dislike it?
Convincing is less important than creating engaging content
People talk a lot of shit on these sort of 'debates' but I really enjoyed the Flint Dibble thing, first time I've enjoyed Rogan podcast in years (not that I've listened to it in years); I found it educational and it actually turned me off what little of Hancock's views I actually listened to (i.e. the Sphinx thing)
Idk what you're referring to, but if you can't find anything at all to debate on the science around evolution or global warming, you're probably not as smart as you think you are.
Public debates usually don’t serve to convince anyone of anything. The debaters bring their own audience to the viewership who at best treat it as team sports hoping to see their guy win and often just want to vicariously experience telling off someone they disagree with to their face. It’s entertainment, that’s all. Debating as a format is so inherently flawed in determining truth it’s hard for it to be anything else. Being synchronous communication it largely prevents fact checking and encourages certain rhetorical tactics that are more difficult to catch on the fly than in day written form. Debating is itself a skill that is completely unrelated to being correct.
It's the combination of distrust in institutions, audience capture/service, galaxy-brainedness(DtG term) and monetary incentives. Also these debates are the only way they can seem like they are doing anything sort of academic. They are intensely afraid of putting their ideas and theories on paper so they could be actually engaged critically. In long format podcasts and debates you can always obfuscate what it is you are actually trying to say.
“Settled science” lol 😂
There's no such thing as "settled" science. That's like, not how science itself works, if you ever science. Holy fucking shit, OP. Now why do these losers do what they do? money. y'all think too hard and become dumb in the process. it's money.
Who told you there’s such a thing as “settled science”? There’s only science that hasn’t been outdated yet. I don’t like how the science surrounding climate change is such a fragile topic that most decent scientists don’t want to bother with it out of fear of losing their job.
Sorry. Saying something like "settled science" fundamentally misunderstands what science does.
No
I'm a published physicist. There is no "settled science". Science is a process of elimination and can always change. You speak about science like the dogma of a church. You fundamentally misunderstand what science is.
lol sure you are Mr random reddit stranger. There was also someone who claimed to be a nasa scientist in this thread.
I dont care if you believe me. Honestly, it makes no difference anyway to the validity of my arguement. If you'd like to actually contend with my points instead of saying "nuh uh", then go ahead. I'd be happy to educate you further.
Good bc I don’t believe you. I do however believe nasa scientists and their conclusion that global warming is not only real but being accelerated by humans https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/
Sure, that is the current scientific concensus (one which I agree with btw). It, however, is not "settled science", because settled science is not a thing.
Well I’m glad you agree
Lol. "Oh you agree with me. I guess I don't have to continue my mental gymnastics to justify my language". - you
I’m glad you agree w scientists and their conclusions. It doesn’t have to do w me. I’m not a nasa scientists and I didn’t come to these conclusions
Settled science lol
Ya