Some of those statements in the list are sufficiently unclear that I can’t really agree or disagree with them. Others have multiple different claims in them and I agree with some parts and disagree with others. And some are just false.
Most scientists disagree with this but that’s just because it sounds counter-intuitive and scientists are biased against counterintuitive explanations.
This one is false, as some other comments have pointed out.
Besides, the scientific method is wrong because it is in conflict with probability theory. Oh, and probability is created by humans, it doesn’t exist in the universe.
(Bayesian) Probability theory doesn’t say that the scientific method is wrong. It provides a formal specification of why the scientific method (of changing beliefs based on evidence) is correct and how to apply it. The second sentence refers to the true beliefs explained in Probability is in the Mind and Probability is Subjectively Objective, but it mangles them.
Every fraction of a second you split into thousands of copies of yourself. Of course you cannot detect these copies scientifically, but that because science is wrong and stupid.
“Science is wrong and stupid” is just false. It’s more like, you can’t detect these copies directly but they are implied by math that has been supported by experiment. Unless you want to claim that theoretical physics is unscientific, you have to accept that using math to find out facts about the physical world is possible.
And finally, the truth of all these statements is completely obvious to those who take the time to study the underlying arguments. People who disagree are just dumb, irrational, miseducated or a combination thereof.
This exaggerates the simple (tautological?) true statement that “I have enough evidence to convince a rational person of all the above” until it is not true.
I learned this all from this website by these guys who want us to give them our money.
This is also a misrepresentation. Some of the guys on the website work for a nonprofit and want you to give money to fund their research, which they believe will save many lives. Or if you don’t want to do that, they want you give money to some other charity that you believe will save the most possible lives. A majority of the content producers don’t ask for money but many of them do give it.
Some of the guys on the website work for a nonprofit and want you to give money to fund their research, which they believe will save many lives. Or if you don’t want to do that, they want you give money to some other charity that you believe will save the most possible lives.
If it were a con, it would be a very long con. It wouldn’t necessarily look any different from what we see and you describe though. Its hard to con this audience, but most of the contributors wouldn’t be in on it, in fact its imperative that they not be.
Yes but are my donations to you tax exempt? Can I get a rewards credit card to pay you off? There actually is a difference between “wanting money” and having your livelihood depend on donations to your non-profit foundation.
I do not think there is anything sinister going on at all here, but it is mistaken to think that someone who doesn’t nakedly solicit donations and does endorse other charities cannot be running a con (i.e. they have pretenses about the purpose and usage of the money). For some types of fish you can only catch some if you are willing to let most of them go.
One is the extent to which individual future donors are necessary.
The other is the divergence between any group’s goals and those of its members. A good analogy is heat dissipation: for any one member, one can’t predict his or her goals from the group’s goals, though in general one can generalize about group members and their goals.
Note that these are matters of extent and not type. Note also how much this is true for other things. :)
Some of those statements in the list are sufficiently unclear that I can’t really agree or disagree with them. Others have multiple different claims in them and I agree with some parts and disagree with others. And some are just false.
This one is false, as some other comments have pointed out.
(Bayesian) Probability theory doesn’t say that the scientific method is wrong. It provides a formal specification of why the scientific method (of changing beliefs based on evidence) is correct and how to apply it. The second sentence refers to the true beliefs explained in Probability is in the Mind and Probability is Subjectively Objective, but it mangles them.
“Science is wrong and stupid” is just false. It’s more like, you can’t detect these copies directly but they are implied by math that has been supported by experiment. Unless you want to claim that theoretical physics is unscientific, you have to accept that using math to find out facts about the physical world is possible.
This exaggerates the simple (tautological?) true statement that “I have enough evidence to convince a rational person of all the above” until it is not true.
This is also a misrepresentation. Some of the guys on the website work for a nonprofit and want you to give money to fund their research, which they believe will save many lives. Or if you don’t want to do that, they want you give money to some other charity that you believe will save the most possible lives. A majority of the content producers don’t ask for money but many of them do give it.
If it were a con, it would be a very long con. It wouldn’t necessarily look any different from what we see and you describe though. Its hard to con this audience, but most of the contributors wouldn’t be in on it, in fact its imperative that they not be.
For future reference, all of my comments and posts are by someone who wants you to give me your money. Likewise for most people, I suspect.
Yes but are my donations to you tax exempt? Can I get a rewards credit card to pay you off? There actually is a difference between “wanting money” and having your livelihood depend on donations to your non-profit foundation.
I do not think there is anything sinister going on at all here, but it is mistaken to think that someone who doesn’t nakedly solicit donations and does endorse other charities cannot be running a con (i.e. they have pretenses about the purpose and usage of the money). For some types of fish you can only catch some if you are willing to let most of them go.
Great point.
I will add two levels of nuance.
One is the extent to which individual future donors are necessary.
The other is the divergence between any group’s goals and those of its members. A good analogy is heat dissipation: for any one member, one can’t predict his or her goals from the group’s goals, though in general one can generalize about group members and their goals.
Note that these are matters of extent and not type. Note also how much this is true for other things. :)