Message from @Benjamin Bucks

Discord ID: 441704693761310722


2018-05-03 20:52:52 UTC  

Which, is exactly how I expected the conversation to go. And once again, I'm right.

2018-05-03 20:52:55 UTC  

I love winning

2018-05-03 20:53:31 UTC  

You have a problem with my "filter" on life which is fine. Everyone has their own filter

2018-05-03 20:53:35 UTC  

You get to choose your own filter

2018-05-03 20:53:57 UTC  

What makes a good filter is if it can

1.) Make you happy and
2.) predict future events with relative accuracy

2018-05-03 20:54:01 UTC  

Welcome <@414022999423844353>

2018-05-03 20:54:24 UTC  

So I'm an optimist. Aboslutely. Because life is much better that way and generally it gives me a good predictor of how things are going to be

2018-05-03 20:54:28 UTC  

I don’t have a problem with you having that outlook, my only problem is trying to give it some sort of objective legitimacy by calling it science

2018-05-03 20:54:40 UTC  

In fact it’s a good outlook

2018-05-03 20:54:48 UTC  

You don’t need to call it science

2018-05-03 20:54:54 UTC  

You can come to whatever conclusion you like, butmy position is science based absolutely

2018-05-03 20:55:11 UTC  

And I proved it. Honestly I don't even see what's so optimistic

2018-05-03 20:55:13 UTC  

Its just realism

2018-05-03 20:55:39 UTC  

Proved it with the paragraphs of that psychologist saying that defining intelligence by only one metric is “egotistical?”

2018-05-03 20:55:40 UTC  

You have to look into the field of cognitive science. It will challenge everything you know about the world

2018-05-03 20:56:08 UTC  

Egotistical means self centered. So a culture that has different priorities is going to value things differently.

2018-05-03 20:56:22 UTC  

None of these are scientific concepts

2018-05-03 20:56:29 UTC  

Lol sure they are

2018-05-03 20:56:34 UTC  

You don't undesrtand what science is then

2018-05-03 20:56:37 UTC  

And I agree with most of what the psychologist was saying

2018-05-03 20:56:45 UTC  

Science is making judgements based on observations

2018-05-03 20:56:48 UTC  

It’s just not a rigorous science.

2018-05-03 20:56:51 UTC  

No it isn’t.

2018-05-03 20:56:53 UTC  

Yes it is

2018-05-03 20:57:04 UTC  

You have an arbitrarily narrow view of what science is

2018-05-03 20:57:10 UTC  

Science isn't only lab coats and chemicals

2018-05-03 20:57:19 UTC  

Not saying it is.

2018-05-03 20:57:21 UTC  

Science is a system of figuring out the material world around us

2018-05-03 20:57:52 UTC  

You can apply a scientific mindset to most things, but not everything. Anytime you get into philosphy for instance, science is useless because there's no experiement you can do to prove a concept.

2018-05-03 20:57:58 UTC  

Science is a meticulous, falsifiable and repeatable process. Otherwise it’s observational philosophy

2018-05-03 20:57:58 UTC  

And you also cant prove a negative

2018-05-03 20:58:12 UTC  

We don't disagree

2018-05-03 20:58:31 UTC  

hold on brb, busy. if myst ever comes back tell him whenever he wants to become a winner to hmu

2018-05-03 20:58:54 UTC  

Nice..

2018-05-03 20:58:59 UTC  

There is nothing falsifiable or repeatable about saying that we need to broaden our view of intelligence. That’s philosophy

2018-05-03 20:59:07 UTC  

lmao he's been here the whole time hiding

2018-05-03 20:59:08 UTC  

k brb

2018-05-03 20:59:10 UTC  

And I don’t mean that as a pejorative

2018-05-03 21:33:04 UTC  

I agree with you ben. Its the people who think the world can be found out with the scientific method that bother me. Science is very limited.

2018-05-03 21:33:48 UTC  

For instance, how fo you know science reflects reality? You need philosophy to answer that. You cant use science to prove science withoyt arguing in a circle

2018-05-03 21:34:21 UTC  

But like, thats part of the evolution. You get really deep into one particular worldview, and then the older you get the more refined and nuanced you get. You add more distinctions to things