Is friction really negligible here?
I try to contribute to things getting better, sometimes through polite rational skepticism.
Disagreeing with your comment ≠ supporting the opposite side, I support rationality.
Let’s discuss to refine the arguments that make things better sustainably.
Always happy to question our beliefs.
Is friction really negligible here?
Need a new survival craft game where you can tame isopods to collect precious metals.
Some humans become lactose intolerant as they grow up, not all of them.
For sure this explains a lot of religious rules but I think agent illusion is also a big contributor.
I’ve read a nice book from a French skepticism popularizer trying to explain the evolutionary origin of cognitive bias, basically the bias that fucks with our logic today probably helped us survive in the past. For example, the agent detection bias makes us interpret the sound of a twig snapping in the woods as if some dangerous animal or person was tracking us. It’s doesn’t cost much to be wrong about it and it sucks to be eaten if it was true but you ignored it. So it’s efficient to put an intention or an agent behind a random natural occurence. This could also be what religions grew from.
“I’m paying with exposure.” argument is not that great. Agreed with easy access to culture for those who can’t spare the money though.
Fair point, I should specify “modern science”. There’s quite a gap of scientific quality between traditional medicine and modern science based medicine for example.
Lecun has massively contributed to the past decades of progress in machine learning with his fundamental research. He may have sold his soul to Meta, but his work is definitely very respected, he’s not just another rich guy.
Does it require independent peer review though? How do you achieve that with without publication? The predatory publication system is a different point.
Edit: fix without
He probably means the idealized scientific method you learn at school is not what really happens in reality, in particular “soft” science fields may not be able to follow it strictly and still do good science.
That just what being a member of society is, lots of overhead.
I think it’s mostly that you can’t expect people foreign to your field to understand how valuable your work is, you need to communicate it to them. Then there’s a fine line between popularization and bullshiting that your sense of ethics will make you cross or not depending on the situation.
I would guess it’s just related to teenagers getting body odors and not knowing yet that they have to deal with them.
Maybe because people get into this kind of very abstract field to escape reality and that would mean reality is catching up on them and reducing their freedom to not have to care about consequences.
Thank you for looking it up.